a digest of cases - forgotten books for scantlebury v. green read scan tlebury v. breen. ” page i...
TRANSCRIPT
P REFACE.
THISvolume collects th e cases un der each h eading and
professes to do n omore . Th ere w as no digest of 00 10n ial cases before th is, an d I h ave h ad to do th e w ork
unaided . Th e public ow e th is -volume to Mr . H . KIRKE,Sh eriff of Demerara , w h o in terested h imself in th e w orkand got a gran t
-in-aid .
My th anks are due'
toth eir H on ours Sir D. P . CHALMERS,C.J. , N; ATKINSO N and W. A.
’
M . SHERIFF, JJ., w h o
encouragedme and aidedmy research es ; a lso to Dr .
CARRINGTON , Mr . F. VILLIERS, an d last, but n ot least, to
H is Excellen cy th e Governor , Viscoun t GORMANSTON, allof w h omh elped in amaterial w ay th e bringing out of
th e volume .
I th ank th e Subscribers an d th eStaff of th eRegistrar’
s
O ffice w h o assistedme w h ile th e w ork w as in th e Press.
I h ope th e Digest w ill be useful in its w ay, but I w ould
call th e atten tion of th ose w h o use th e w ork to th e fol
low ing valuable excerpt fromMr . Serjean t ROBINSONTh e law is in fact codified as far as it usefully can be
inmany text books, w h ich con tain th e decision s th at h avebeen given onmultitudinous disputed poin ts . But th ese
compen dia give you, in gen era l, th e bare d ecision s. Youmust see th e report of th e case Itself, a s w ell a s th e
precise reason s given for tbejpldgmen t, in order to asoer
tain w h eth er th e facts coin cl de With those In th e law
respecting w h ich you seek to be en ligh ten ed .
”
E. A. V. ABRAHAM .
ERRATA.
Page 8, 3rd line for Corner v. Anderson read Coria v. Anderson .
Page 20 , 1 3th line frombottom, for Wills r ead Wells.Pag e 2 5 , 3rd line fromtop,f or Daniel
”read Darrell.
”
Page 2 7, 7th line frombottom, f or Collier v. Pullitla ll read Coelhov. Pullitlall.
”
Page 28, 8th lin e fromtop, f or Nich olson read Mich elson .
Page 42, 1 7th lin e fromtop , f or Price”r ead Prince .
”
Page 43, sth line fromtop, f or “Webster v. Ruck” r ead Websterv. Birch .
”
Page 49, 2nd line fromtop, f or Madeno”read Madeiro.
Page 50 , I I th lin e fromtop, f or Ncepan l r ead Serepaul.Page 58, 3rd line fromtop, f or Davidson
”read
“ Daw son .
Page 62 , I sth lin e fromtop, j ar Bascomv. Relia” read “ Bascomv. Relva .
Page 67, 6th lin e frombottom, j ar Grant v. Josin read Grant v.osa .
”
Page 72 , 1lth line frombottom,f or Ferreira read Teixeira.
Page 78, 8th line fromtop, j br Allibocus” read Adams.
”
Page 81 , 7th lin e frombottom, f or “ Green v. Bean”
r ead Goocalv. Bean .
”
Page 82 , 1 7th lin e fromtop, f or “Cumberlan d” read “Cumberbatch .
Page 9 1 , I4th line frombottom,f or “Marks” read Mars.
”
Page 1 0 5, 7th lin e frombottom,f or “ Famum” r ead Farmer .
Page I 1 2 , 1 2th lin e fromtop, f or Scan tlebury v. Green read Scantlebury v. Breen .
”
Page I33, 7th line fromtop, f or Mussillah v. Massiah read “Mussillah v. Man sch ott.
”
TABLE O F CASES.
Every case in w h ich appeal w as noted is given in th is table . Agreatmany cases w ere n ever argued or brough t to a h earing , an d some w ere
w ith d raw n and oth ers decided on th emerits. Th ere are a few cases
w h ere no w ritten decision s w ere given Th ese are all noted in th is table
w ith an asterisk.
PAGE.
PAGE. Alexander, HookemchundAben danon v. Sproston , 31 v
Mar.
’83. 68, 7 1 , 76, 891 29
Abdoolah v Barclay, 1 90 61 .
’
65Abrah am, Herbert v.
Horton v.
Sh ervington v.
Adams v. Agard , 3 Feb .
’
72‘v. Clarke , 7 Aug .
’
69
James y .
v. Mayers, 7 O ét.’
65v. Poonach ie, 3 Aug.
’
72
Adolphus, Bunbury v.
Ad . G en l . v. Fran ce, 30
June 1 883*
v King, May 1 883 84, 1 1 3v. Marsh a l, 2 2 bep .
1 883 . . u
Agard , Adams v.
Angally v.
v.Bean,2oSep .
8 Nov.
’
62*
v . Crosby, I 7 O ét
Moon ah v.
Ah ch ee v. Layton , 8 O ct.
1 889Ah -joh n v. Bethune, 2 5Feb . 1 865
Albert v. Dougla s, 4Aug1 866
H oh enkerk v
Allany, Reg zrza v
Allen v. Austin , 5 July’
62*
Allickv. ]oseph , 23Nov 67, 94Allicock v. Cuckow , 1 0
Dec . 1 870
v Van Lange, 9O ct.’
69v.Wigh t, 81am. 1 870
Alty, Darrell v.
Ameerboccus, Halliday V.
Ameeran , Ferreira v.
Amosv.H a ly, 4Mar.’
65v. 1 8
Amson , Cameron v.
Angally v. Agard , 1 9 Dec1 884
Angoo v. Miller, 1 Dec .
’
83An derson v. Clarke*
Corria v.
Goulamally v
Mayers v.
Serrao v.
Seth v.
Andrew v Novel, 1 2 Nov.
1 858
An son , Belmon te v‘
Corria v.
D’
Nascimento v
De Souza v
Dias v.
Gon salves v.
Hen riques v.
3978, 79
v.
‘
Klien , 1 7May’
90 67, 84
TABLE O F CASES.
e \w ,
1_ w :
An son , Leon-a-fat vLord v.
Luckie v
Murdoch v.
Nascimento v.Ragiatteah v
San tos v
v. Stuart, 1 6 Dec .
’85 23. 24.Teixeirav. Wong-a-h oy, 29
July 1 882
v.Wong-a-samAn th ony, Macedo v.
Anton io v Crosby, 1 0 Apl1 858
*
An ton io v King , 2 1 Mar1 882
Applew h aite v. Fauset, 30May
AppO lIos v. Scott, 3 Sep.
IB7O"E
Arnold , Fernandes v.
v. Gomes, 1 0 May’
73v. Tomside, 6 April
1 867“
Arthur v. Moore, 24Apl . ’69Parris v.
Ashby, King v.
Augusta v. Duncan , 31May 1 873
Austin , Allen v.
G ardner v
Miller v.
v. Moses,30Sep.
’
5 I
Bacchus, Edw ards v.
v. Warren ,4Feb1 865
Bab v. Wolseleyy, Aug .
’
73Backer, D ’
O liveira v.
Fauset v.
Rodrigues v,
Lopes v.
v. Tappin , 5 Feb.
1 859 . . u
Z itman v.
Bad deren v. Mulligan , 2 2
April 1 865
PAGE.
Bagot v. Gunga , 1 0 Apl.’80
JonesBah ador v. Humph reys, 6March 1 858
Baird , London v
Baker v. Campbell, 27 Sep .
1 858Gon salves v.
v. McFarlane, 27Sep.
I858‘
Sproston v
v. Tappin , Feb.
'
59Baptist, Kin g v.
Barclay, Abid oolah v.
v
Smith vSw an . Aug .
’
72*
Barla v.Mush et, 7june
’
57*
Barn es. D’Aguiar vGilbert v.Nunes v.
Popw ell v.
Silvano v.
Barnw ell, Reynolds v.
Bascomv. Beeharry, 1 6March
v. Beete, 3 Apl.'67*
Ben jaminBerengeav. Busserat, 23 Nov
1 867*
v. Ch amroo, 14Jan1 865
‘
Cox v.
1 864v. Haz zard , 28May
1 864v. Marsh all, 1 9 june
1 858*
v. Peter, 2 7 A l.'
56*
v. Relva , 2 7 Spep.
v. Stover , 2 1 Aug .
’69
v. Norton , 6 Mar.
’
69 77, 1 04Batiste v. Burrow es, 1 5 1m.
1 881Bean , Agard v.
Goocal v
85. 97
’
58 62, 90
42
5 , 2 1 , 1 35
( DMNEH : l i‘l l lN SlTY
TABLE O F CASES.JUL32:“WI
Beekh an , Roh ela v.
Beeh arry, Bascomv.
Bullock v.
Beete, Bascomv. Greedh arry, 28Feb1 874 0 0 0
v. Kelly. 9 May’
74*Belgrave, King
v. y,Seal 26 Feb .
’
59“
Bell v. Samuel, 6 June ’
57Watt v.
Belmon te v. An son , 2 5May, 1 888
Ben , de Cambra v.
v. Dan iel, 3Dec. 79 .
David v.
v. Mich elson , 2 1 Jan1 865
Ben jamin v. Bascom, 30Dec.
’
68
V. dc Freitas, 24Feb1 887
Gemmel v.
Berengea v Bascom, 7 Sep.
1 878
Bertyne, Younge v.
Bethune, Ah—joh n v.
Carreiro v.
Ch un-ch ai-ch ing
"
v.
Francis v .
Freitas v .
Gomes v.
Martin s
Pereira v.
Valladares v.
Dec. 1 865Bh eekh arry v. McLean , 1 6Sep. 1 876 6 1 , 66,
Binn s, Carreirov. De Freitas, 2 2
March 1 883Dundas v. .
Gordon v. .
Hollingsw orth ,April 1 883
McKenn a v.
Pequeno v
Roch a v.
Birch , Cahuac v.
Gon salves v
Martin v
Birch ,Robello v
Sh ing-a-lee vSimon v.
Webster, v.
Blake, Sa lmon v
1 1 3 Bland v. Iskenius, 7 July1 860*
v. Sn elling , 6 Dec.
’62* (fire brigade)
Thomson v.
Blank v. Mulligan , 2 Nov.
1 867 1 04, 1 0 5, 1 0 6Blasky, PatrickBob, Samuel v.
v. Wolseley,Aug .
'
72
Boellen v. Straker, 2 2 Feb .
1 873”
Bogado v.King , 2May’
74*Bollers, G reaves v.
Bolton , D’
O liveira v.
v. Fern andes, 24Dec . 1 869Gon sa lves v.
Jard ine v.
Bonh amv. Francis,April 1 881
Boodh a v. Bugh oo I 1 Apl .I 874
v. Greenslade, 29March , 1 873v. RamnarainMay 1 880
Boodh oomin a v N in ia, 1 0
May 1 873*
Bourne, Reynolds v.
42 Bow en v. Buttery, 1 9Apl.1 889
v. Ch apman ,
Aug .
’
73Boyle v. Now ell, 1 5 Dec
1 860 *
Bracy v. Harris, 20 july’
90
v. Frederick, 1 Sep1 863
*
v. McTurk, 1 8 Apl.1 874 32 , 38, 1 0 8
Brandon , Coates v.
G lasgow v.
Brassington , Doorastoola v.
v. Ragbia, 23
JTHY’
77
TABLE O F CASES.
Brath w aite v. Dummett, 1
May’
59, h olding un der
390i’46 th at in ejeétment
cases th eremust be tw oJustices .
Brath w aite v. Mayor T.
C. July’
6 1 *
Sw ain v.
Braud , Bun see v
JonauthBraz ao, G reen v
Brebner, Fraser v.
Joycurn , 24Dec1 865
Breen , Corria v.
Farin h a v.
Gon salves v.
Scantlebury v.
Bremner v Wigh t, 7 Dec .
1 867B. G . Mimn g Company,Hodgkin son v.
Seyler v.
Brittlebank, King v.
Brow n , Coronel v.
v. Dornford , 5Dec .
’
90*
Bruce v. Fraser, 1 7 Feb1 885
"E
Gomes v.
Brumell, De Jesus v.
Gomes v.
Whyte v.
Encen s v. Sooeah , 1 8Aug .
1 860 ? . u
Budal v. McLean , 2 2 Apl1 876
Ba gh oo, Boodh a v.
Bugle v. Seconde , 23 Jan20 March
’
91Bullock v. Beekh aran , 6
May 1 87 1 , h old in g th atWith h old ing w ages of an
immigran t is a civil an d
n ot criminalmatterBunbury v. Adolph us,
June ,’
83*
v. DickPeters v.
v. Steph en s,Feb .
’
58 1 0 8, 1 1 6
PAGE.
Bunbury v. Young , 14Apl1 86c*
Bun seev.Braud , 1 2Aug .
’
76 62 , 67Young v.
Burgin v. O liver, 2 1 May1 870
*
Burn h amVan BattenburgBatiste v.
Caddell v.
Ch an -a-poo v.
v. Craw ford , 1 6
Nov.
’
58
v. De Abreo, 1 1
June’
86 (Lic.)V. dc Cambra 28
Feb . 1 874*de Silva v.
de Freitas v.
D’
O llve lra v
Elh pie v.
Eppillie v.
v. Ferreira , 31
O ct.’
76
31 O ct. 74*Gomes v.
v. Gon sa lves, 26
Jan .
’
89Gon salves v.
v. Grabes, 26
Jan .
’
89
Jardme v.
Jefl unr v,
v. Jouaq’
u’
in , 1 1
Feb .
’
89.—57, 9 1 , 92 ,
Juan v.
Martins v.
Mendes v.
Mon trose v.
v. Nunes,
July 11873"
v.Peters, 1 3Aug1 886
Porter v.
Rodrigues v.
Tan-la-Ch ing v.
Unmaid v.
Voga do v.
v. Y Ip-li-kin g , 2
May 1 874
TABLEO F CASES.
Bury, Duke v.
G arnett v.
Wickh amv.
Bush ell v Solomon , 6May1 887
Busserat, Bascomv.
Bussun t, v.
Butler, Coombs v.
v. Douglas, 2 Jan .
1 865v. Van dyke, 5 Sep .
’
57, follow ing H eyler
v. Clouston
Buttery, Bow en v
Butts, Sample v
Cabral v Young , 24Jun e’
82 7 1 ,Cad dell v. Burrow es, 1 9Feb .
’
76
Ca huac v. Birch , 2 1 Jan .
Caimes v. Joseph , 2 5 Mar’
82
Soliman v.
Callee v. Pullitlall, 1 0 Mar
I 877Callid in , Kennedy v.
Cambridge , Ed w ard s v.
James v.
Joseph v.
Cameron v. An son 1 9 Jan .
’6 1 *
v. Ch an -a-poo, 7O ct.
’65 , O rd .
repealed
Taylor v.
Campbell, Baker v.
v. Romeo, 29Aug .
Can terbury, Cleaver v
Can z iar, Dundas v.
Capell v. Pickering , 2 7March , 1 874*
Capello v Greaves 6Mar.
1 880 44, 9Carberyv. Dunn , 3Apl .
’
69Cardoza v. Younge, 3 1
‘May 1 879
83
PAGE.
72 ; 74
731 74
Carreira v..Anderson ,
April, 1 882
v. Anson , 5 May789
v. Bethunev. a s 2 2 May
7
85 f
v. Breen, 5 Feb .
7
76
v.Sisuckow , 5Apl.9 I . 4.
Da Silva v.
3 3 55
De G ar v.
v. Green ,v. Green slade,
Jun e’
68
v. Manth orp , 1 8
Dec .
’69 87, 88, 1 33
v . Steele . 1 7 Feb .
1 866*
Iv. Wrigh t, 28Aug’
85Carruth ers v. Kh oondan
sing , 1 3 Feb .
’
7 2 6, 57, 86v. Joseph , 1 3 Aug .
7
70*
Radd iah , 30 March
1 867*
Carth y, Wa terman v.
Ca ss1e v. Milne , 24Apl. ’
80
Castello v.Teixeira , 14O ét.1 87 1
Cast1llo v Macken zie, 5AprIl 1 873
*
Ch a lmers, BascomvDow v
Gon salves v.
Men d in h o v.
Ch an ness, Bascom‘ v.
Ch and ler, Fong-a -ch ing vCh an -a-foo, Cameron v.
Ch an -a-poo v.Burrow es, 1 0
May’
73Ch an -a—sh oo v. Fran cis. 1 9Dec .
’
90
Ch apman , Bow en v.
v. Dun n , 5 June’
69 (Militia )Isaacs v.
v. Pooler 8 Feb .
1 890
TABLE O F CASES.
Ch apman , Straughan v.
Ch arles, Dem. River Co. v.
Ch eeseman , Paris v.
Ch eesew righ t, Hodgson v.
Ch ester, Horton v.
Todd v.
Ch in-a-soo v. Francis, 1 9Dec .
Ch in-a-yow v. Walcott, 7
Jan . 1 87 1*
Ch itto v. KellyCh oung v. Lash ley, 26Apl.9°
Gin
grdrie v. Layton , 8 O Et.
I 89Ch risnere, Putt is v.
Ch ristie, Persaud v.
Ch ristoph er v. McNicholl,8Aug .
’
84 39Chun-ch e-Ch ing, Darrell v.
v. Beth une, 1 8
Feb. 1 869Chung-ch in-chungv.Cuckow , 2 Gift.
’
69, allow ingaffidavit to be used on
eith er side in Review
Chun -a-h ing v. Isaacs, 1 5July 1 88
Chun -lan -ting , Gray v.
Ch ootie, Halliday v.
Clair v. Menconca, 1 6Mar.1 867
Clarke, Adams v.
An derson v.
v. Grey, 3Nov.
’62
ordering penalty of $4Gomes v.
H aly v.
H ooraman v.
Rugonauth v
Cleaver v. Can terbury, 1 2
O ét.’
67*
Clemen tson v. Comach o,1 8 Apl .
’
57 (concern ingimmigrant)
Clouston v. Fraser, 4O ét.1 858
Hitzler v.
t For data look under h eading of Immigrants’ names.
14,40
0 0 0
PAGE.
Coates v.Brandon , 1 7 Apl1 885
Collette v. Darrell, 20 O ft1 86I*
Colvin v. Leacock, 1 6 Sep1 865
Comacho. Clementson v
v. Joseph , 30
Dec.
’
6Constantine v. Hubbard , 1 3June 1 87 1 *
Coombs v. Butler, 5 Feb.
1 868
Joseph , 8 0 a. 70*
Coronel v. Brow n ,
Corry v. Vieira , 6 June ’
90Cow an , Younge v.
Coyle, Poudarsing v.
Cox v. Bascom, 1 6 Jan .
1 86 o, 4,42 , 6 1 , 62 , 639 3 368, 1 1 0 , 1 26
v. Davisv. Williams
Craigen v. Mungar,Craw ford, Burrow es v.
Duggin v.
v.Lew is, 1 3Julyfollow ing Rich ard
son v. DalgetyCressall, dos Santos v
Gonsalves v.
Menezes v.
RamalhoCrosby
“
?v. Sh ields, 1 6 Sep.
'
76
(Moonah ) v.AgardAn tonio v
oycurn ). Bremner v.
orastoola) v Brass
ington
(Bunsee) v. BraudCraigen v.
G O Opal v.
Griffin v.
(H oonaman) v. Clarke(Rugonauth ) v.
(Math oora) v. Field(Soomaria), v HunterKoonansing v.
31
1 2660
TABLE O F CASES.
CrdsbyfH oorabaccus v.
(Moorandum) v. LaRoch eMayers v.
(Dinmah omed ) v MidayMattabooda l v.
McConn ach ie v.
Monkh ouse v.
(Beekh arry), Muda l v.
(Sooh oo), McLean v.
v
Mavor v.
(Goolah ) v. Porter, 1 9NCV.
’
64Ramchurran v
Sooka v.
Tucker v.
Cross, Lew is v.
Sproston v.
Crossly v. Ramch arran , 1 5March
’
81
Cruicksh ank, Jard ine v.
La Rose v. ,
8 Aug .
’
9 1
Lutchmee v.
Serepaulv. Wrig h t, 2 2
Feb.
’
89Crump v. Da Silva , 3 May
Cuckow Allicock v.
De Cross v.
De Jesus v.
Corria v.
Ch in-ch i—ch ang v.
Da Silva v.
De Cross v.
De Freitas v.
v. De Jesus, 29O ct .
458
Francisco v.
Gomes v.
v. Gonsa lves, 24Dec .
’
69Do. 25 June
i
70
Do . 2 July’
70
Mingo v.
t For dates see under h eading of Immigran ts’ names.
PAGE.
7, 1 2 2
Cuckow , Sproston v.
v. Nascimen to, 30Dec .
’68
v. Perot
v. Wigh t
Culverh ouse, Darrell v 1
Feb .
’
68
Cumberbatch v Hinds, 1
March’
79Cunnmgh amv. Long , 1 6
Nov.
’
89Cupido v Zitman , 7 June
1 867*
Cush , King v.
Customs (Davis)v.Fresson ,
1 Aug .
’
84Cuvilje v. Landry, 1 5 Feb.
’
68 (O rd inance repea led)
D’Abreu v. Fitzgera ld , 3
Nov.
’
77*
v. Francis, 24Aug .
’
88 5 , 8, 9,41 ,42v. Haw ker 1 2 Mar’
59v. Straker, 2 7 July
’
67D
’
Abrio v. Darrell, 3 1 Dec.
’
70 (Abettor, Costs)v. Griffin , 2 Mar.
’
7 2 (Abettor)v. Grlfiin ,Jan .
’
73(Costs)
Da Costa , Fran k v.
v. n , 1 0 0 81 .’84
D’Aguiar v. Barnes, 3 June
i
go
v. Darrell, 24Dec.
l
69Dias v.
v. Francis, 2 1 Nov’
84vi rFrancis, 24Dec .
’88 (decided byMartins v Francis)
Fitzgerald v.
TABLE O F CASES.
PD’Aguiar, Gomes v.
AGE
v. Gordon , 2 1 Aug’
66v. Harris, 2 1 Aug66
v.
,
Skeete, 4Feb .
v. Turton , 3 1 O éi
57*
v. Wr1gh t, 14Aug’
85*
Da Joh n v . Gun gapersaud ,
3 March’
66*
Dalg leish v n ,2 2 Mar.
’
83Da ly, Liverpool v
Ton ey v.
Da Mattos v. McDavid ,
m1
Feb .
’
9 1
DAmil , Luckie v . .
D’And rade v F1tz allan ,
1
.
4Aug .
’
9 1
v. H a rr1gan , 24Jun e’
84v. Lan g , 1 7Jan .
’
74v. Sw a 1n ,
14Dec.
’
8 1
Dan iel Ben v.
Luck1e , v.
v. Ridley, 1 9 Sep .
’68 1 0 3, 1 04, 1 30D
'
Nascimen to v An son , 9Feb
’
84 32 33. 39Darrell v. Alty, 29Apl
’
65*
v. Ch un Ch e Ch un g1 8 Feb .
’
65*
Collette v.
Culverh ouse v
D’
Aguiar v.
v.. Day, 1 2 Jan .
’67(Sh ipping ) O rdi.nan ce
v. Da Silva , 2 5 Feb .
De Abrio v.
De Freitas v.
De Jonge v.
v.
De Pa iva v.
v.
6
G ardn er, 20 G ift2
PAGE.
1 Darrell, Gonsalves vJesus v.
Mason v
Maddeiras v.
v. Mayers, 2 9 Nov.
’62*
Pequeno v.
v.Rodn gues, 2Nov.
7
67San tos v.
Stragh an v.
Da San tos v. Cressall*
v. James, 9 July’
70
v. Layton ,Dec .
’
82v. Turn er
, 23Jun e
’
77*
Da Silva v. Burrow es, 31O Ct.
’
74v. CorriaDavid v.
v. Greaves, 1 8June'
64. 1 29, 1 30v. Griffin
. 4Jan .
’
73 33v. H III, 20 Aug .
”70
— 1 3, 14, 1 1 6v. Layton , 26 May
’
83 1 8, 2 1 , 69do. , 2 Dec.
’82
v. Mann , 1 8 Mar.’
65 87, 1 35v. Pereira , 3 1 Mar .
’
68 14v. Sw am, 9 0 61 .
’
88 37v. Wrigh t. 2 2 Jan .
’
86 9, 1 7D0 . v., 14Aug .
’
85*
David, Ben v.
v. Da Silva, 26 June§63
v. H ossann ah , 23Jun e’
66v. Jackman, 1 3 Aug .
1
70London
,v
O gle v.
Davidson v Gopaul, 29’
83Davis, Cox v.
v, Fresson , 1 Aug .
1
84McGow an v.
Perreira v.
v.Sampson , 2 7Aug1
89
TABLE O F CASES.
PAGE.
De Rush v. Watson , 26 D’
O liveira v.Darrell, 3Aug .
May’66 35146. 79
De Santos v.J7
ames, 99 July land orvalue
v. Leacock, 7Aug .
v.
7Tumer, 23
’69"
(June Doorastoola v. Brassington ,
De Silva v. uckow , 1 1 2 2 April’
76
Sep.
’
69, follow ing Dooraj v. Keenoo, 3 JulyMingo v. Cuckow ’
80 26, 54, 83, 85David v. Doorgan , Hunter v.
v. Ferreira , 1 0 .5.’
69* v. Miller , 1 Dec.
"83
v. Graves, 2 July’
64. 1 29, 1 52 D’
Omellas, v. Leacock, 7v. Grifiin ,4Jan .
’ May’65 20 , 2 1 , 22
v. Mann , 1 1 Mar.’
65 v. Fran cis. 1 1
v. Manth orp, 1 5Apl . Nov.
’84 20 , 1 24
’
7 1 Roch a v.
v. Pereira, 31Mar.’68 v. Wills, 7 May
v.Rank1n , 5Aug’65
’
65Wrigh t v. Dorn ford , Brow n v.
De Souza v.Anson , 26O ét v. De Ch alus, 1 5’87 Aug .
’80
v. Francis, 24Mar. Goolamally’
88 Leakin v.
30 Dec.
'
82 S.T.. 1 23, 1 24 Suckow orth
v. Griffin , 2 Mar.’
72 1 2 2 Wong-a-Wing v.
v. Reach , 3Apl .’
0 1 67, 68 Dos Ramos v. Francis, 26
84, 85, 1 04. 1 0 8, 1 34, 1 35 Mar .
'
86 44, 1 23v. Sw ain , 2 1 Nov. Dos Santos v. Cressell, 1 8
’84 1 6, 1 1 5, 1 2 2 Nov.
'
76
v. Wigh t, 23 Novr. v. Layton ,67 1 35 Dec.
’
82
Devonish v. Smali“ Dover v. Fra ser, 26June ’
74De Veuve, Ford v. v.McLean , 1 2 Dec.
De Vries v. Fauset, 28’
90
Sep.
’
69 Smith v.
De Waitson v. Cross, 1 Douglas, Butler v.
Sep.
’83 Albert v.
Dias v.D’Aguiar, 7 Mar.
’
90 Santos v.
Di'
ck v. Duggin Dow v, Ch a lmers, 1 6 Dec.
v. Bunbury, 6Apl .’67
’
82 39,45. 81 , 1 0 8, 1 29Dinmah omed v. Halliday, Drayton , Gon salves v,
9 Sep .
’
76 Dublin v. Gray, 1 0 Jan .
Dinez v Sw ain , 1 5 Apl .'63 84, 89, 90
’82 70 , 7 1 , 1 31 Do. 29 Nov.
’62 68
D’O liveira v. Backer, 1 6 Duggin v. Craw ford, 1 1
Nov. Feb.
’
6114Sept. '
6 1 38, 77 Dick v.
V. Bolton , 20 Jil ly v Mendonga, 1 772 July
’
63v.Burrow es, 1 Mar . Duke v. Bury, 2 0 Feb.
’
75’
79 20 , 2 1 3 2 Dumont, Brath w aite v.
TABLE O F CASES.
Dunbar, Reg ina v.
Scipio v.
Dundas v. Binns, 30 May’
90
v. Cauz a , 1 6 Mar.’
61
Duncan , Augusta v.
Dunn , Carbery v.
Ch apman v
Daw es v
Easton , Borman v.
Edw ards v. Bacchus, 1 8
May’
72
v. Cambridge, 31Aug .
’
72 1 5, 1 7Ed w in , G ray v.
Elliott, De Freitas vEllipie, v. Burrow es, 24Dec .
’
69“
Eppilie v. 8 Aug .
’
68 1 0 , 29Emamudh in v. Muller , 2
Nov.
’82 faéts reversingdecision
Evan s v. Young-a-sam, 26Aug .
’65 28, 1 28
Etada llyv.Salmon ,Aug .
’
72 1 04Evelyn , Parker v.
Koh elet v
"
.
Ew ing Sugar Estate Co . v.
Seals, 3 June’
87 53, 99
Fairman v. Knoop, 4Jan .
v. Read , 1 0 July’
58
Fan v Moore, 1 5 Dec .
’
60 *
Faria v. Inn is, 14Feb .
’
91 5. 78, 1 0 1 , 1 34Farin h a v.Breen 6Feb ’
76*
Farley, Kelly v.
Farmer, Pon tifex v.
Farnumv. Reid , July’
58Fauset, Applew h aite v.
v. Baker, 2 7 June’
76
De Viveiros v.
Gon sa lves v.
G rovesnor v.
Fauset, Moon ligh tScrutcher v
v. Vaugh an , 24Sep.
xiii.
PAGE.
Fernandes v. Arnold , 2 7
Jan .
’
72
Bolton v.
Fran cis, 24Mar’88
G lasgow v.
v. Green slade, 9Nov.
’
79 1 9, 35,46Ferreira v.An aran , 23Aug .
Burrow es v.
De Freitas v.
v. Fran cis, 2 Jan7
85*
v. Maxw ell 26Gift’
6 1 *
v.McInroy, 1 9Jan’67
v. Mendes 1 Aug
O lton v
v. Waterman , 30
June’60 *
29 O ft.’
64*v. Wigh t, 4Aug .
’
66—37, 74, 76, 1 1 2 , 1 30Field Mathoora v.
Routay v.
v. Sohun , 1 6 Nov’
67*
v. Wolsely, 1 6Mar7
72
Figueira, Greenslade v.
v. Solomon , 1 6
Sep .
’87
*
Fitz allan , D’
And rade v
De Freitas vFitzgerald , D
’Abreu v.
v. D’Aguiar, 1
Mar .
'
79 (Remit toMagistrate)
Fong-a-Ling v. Ch andler,
31 Dec .
’
81 1 0 , 1 0 9, 1 1 0
1 5 Nov.
Ford v. De Veuve, 1 3 July’
86 31
v. Small, 1 2 June ’87 99, 1 1 0
TABLE O F CASES.
Forsyth v.Wigh t, 5Mar .
’
70Fox
, Gonsalves v.
France, Ad . Gen era l v.
Francis v. Beth une , 29 O ét.’
64, foliow ed byPing
-a-w ing v.
Pile, David v.
Hosann ahD
’Abreu v.
D’
O liveira v.
De Souza v.
De Farn issah v
D’
O rn ellas v.
Dos Ramos v.
Fern an des v.
Ferreira v.
G reen v.
G omasv. Haley, 1 8 Mar.
’
65*
Lee-a-ong v.
Marques v.
Martms v.
v. Men des I Apl .’
83Sew soh oye v.
v. Wigh tYoung-a-samv.
Fran cisco v. Cuckow ,1 0
0 81.’
69*
Fran ck v. Da Costa, 31
Nov.
’
59Frank, Hin d s v.
v. Mack , 28July’
62
Roh eler v.
rFranklin , Adams v.
Ferreira 1 Aug’
83*
Fraser v. Brebn er , 24May’
7 9Clouston v.
Da Silva v.
v. G on sa lves 2M ar .
’
88*
v. 2 1 Jun e’
82
n ston v.
Men des v
Th orne v.
Welch v.
Ung-samv.
Freeman , Green v.
PAGE.
1 6 66, 68
French , Urquh art v.
Fresson , Customs v.
Sw an v
Frietas v. Bethune, 2 2 O ét.
Fry, Verbeke v.
Fulley, McTurk v.
Furrey, Lew is v.
G albath v Th ompson , 4Nov.
’
76*
G an gah , Intch sin g v.
G ardn er v. Austin , 30 Dec.
’
68
Darre ll v.
Th ii‘lamah v.
Garnett v. Bury, 1 Jun e’67
*
v. Bean ,1 5 Nov.
’
79v. Nich olson ,
1 9Sep.
’
84 82 86, 92
Nurse v
Solomon v.
Williams , 1 9Sep’
84*Wrigh t v.
G arraw ay, Nurse v
G ay, Josiah v.
G emmel v. Ben jamin , 4Aug
’
67Ch astity v. Davson , 7 Sep
’
78
G ibbons v. Austin , 1 Sep’
8
v.Striker , 24June’
71— 2 5.42 . 146
G ibson , Wh ite vG ilbert v. Barnes, 1 2 June
’
9 I
G ill, Seerkesoon v.
G lasgow v. Bran don , 1 7Apl.
’85
— 4, 2 9, 31 , 66v. De Freitas, 30
Apl.’
8F 28, 67, 1 2 1 , 1 32
v. Fernandes, 1 3April
’
67*
H ard een , 14May’
81 64, 1 0 6, 1 0 7
TABLE O F CASES.
Glasgow v. Kryenh ofi, 1 7April
’
80 1 7, 1 2 1 , 1 29Gobin , Halliday v.
Gokul v. Bean , 20 Aug .
’
70Golab v. Porter,Gomes, Arnold v
v. Backer, 5 March’63 28, 30 , 58
v. Bruce, 7 Aug .
’
6 65v. Bethune, 8034'v. Brun ell,v. Burrow es
3April’80 1 , 1 2 1
3April’
80
(motion to prooecd)(w eigh ts)(2 testing
v. Clarke,v. Cuckow ,
v. D’Aguiar,
v. Francis, 31 May’
54 " o 61 71 81 1 22
Gon salves v.
v. Green , 20 Feb.
’67
on old S.T. O rd .
v. Harcourt (fiat), 24May
’
75 5 1
Ouris.) 6 1 , 70
1 7Jany.
'
74(c 1 ) 1 3-3-74*
n 34~5 r,73alev. Joseph , 29June
’
69King v.
v. O lton , 27'
Feb.
’
69v. Ph illips,v. Smith , 6 Dec.
’
73 6
v. Solomon , 82 , 84ain (gaming),13Dec.
’83
(SC ). 7-3-84(Testing) 2
Feb.
’67
(w aiver),(Witness)(Juris )
v. Young, 2 1 . 1 2 .61 at
G omes v. Young ,Gomez v.
.
Gon salves, 30Nov. 67
"
Gonga , In tch sing v.
Gon salves v. Anson , 2 2Feb .
’
89 1Do. 1 2 .
v. Birch ,v. Bolton , 6Aug .
’
70 ,appellant order
’
d
byR.C. to appear
an d answ er inter
rogatories. Did
not appear ; case
dismissedv. Breen , 6 Feb.
’
76
v. Burrow es, 22 Feb.
v. Baker
7 3v. Ch almers,v. Cressall, 1 1 Nov.
76*
v. Cuckow , 41 , 131Cuckow v
v. Darrell, 2
Day v.
Daw son v
v. De Freitas, 6Nov.’69
v. Drayton , 1 2 Sep.’68"
v. Fraser, 2 1 June’
82v. Fox, 2 2 May
’
91
Gomes v.
v. G reen , 9 0 61 .’89 7, 1 2 2
v. Joseph , z4Jun ,e’
69 42v. Harcourt, 1 5 O &.
’85
v. King , 29Aug .
’
74v. Laurence, 2 1 O dt.
v. Layton , 1 7Apl.’85
v. (testing rum)1 6 Sep .
’
82— 1 26, 1 31 , 1 32
London v
O lton v.
v. Straker, 6 Nov. 69v. Sw ain , 2 1 July
’83
Wade v.
TABLE O F CASES.
Gonsalves v. Young, 1 6 Gray, Matth eison v.
0 a , 1 6 Nov. v. Roh ory. 1 3 1
Goocol v. Th ompson , 4 v Sw ainNO V 76 Graves, De Silva v.
G°°dh °Y1 Majhor G reaves v. Bollars (referGoolab v. Porter, 1 2 Aug ence)
’
76 Capello v.
Goolastankan v. Perreira, Greedh arry, Beete v.
1 8 Dec.’
85 G reen v. Braz oa ,Goolama lly v. Anderson , v. Bean 81
‘
8 July’
82 Corria v.
Goolamally v. Dornford ,Fr
%ncis v '
Noa 3. 0 a .
'
9.v
.gfsma"?9
(evidence, opium) 2 2 Gomes v
May'
85 Gon salves v.
Gopaul , David son v. H illman ,
Daw son v. Jackman v,
Gordon v. Binns,’
67 56, 90 Portsmouth v.
D’Aguiar v. v. Smith , 6 Dec .
’
73v. De Freitas, 26 v. Ta it, 29 Mar .
’
89May
’60 * Trap v.
v. Gomes, 27 O ét. v. Watson ,
Green slade, Boodh oov . Gordon 8 O ét. Corria v.
’
58* De Freitas v.
v. Gouvia , De G ouvia v.
v. Parkin son , 1 3 Fern an des v.
Nov.
’
58 v. Figuiera , 30
Pereira v. May’
59 1 52
Goring v. Macier, 4O ft. H ardeen v.
’
58 (tax for troop h orse) Hicken v.
G oungerpersaud ,Dajohn v Prin ce v,
Govia , David v. RagaboneGordon v. Vieira v.
King . 29.8 74— 48,49, 1 33 Greig v. Miller, 29 AugSimon v.
Young , 8.8.60 " v. Ramdh an sing , 2 7G rabes. Burrow es v. Aug .
’
89G ran t v. Josa , 24Nov.
’
83..5, 2 7, 28 Grey, Clarke v.
67, 72 Dublin v.
v. H illis, v. Ed w in ,
Lang , 5 Dec .
’
74 v. Crosby, 9May’
63G reaves, Capello v. G riflin , D
’Abrio v.
De Silva v. Da Silva v.
Gray v. Ch in lan -ch ing . 2 2 De Souza v.
Dec.
’
60* v. H oosenboccus,Dublin v. 2 1 Dec .
’
6 1 *
Josiah v. Grifl‘ith v. Adams. 2 5 . 59v. Kh odaboccus 1 8 v. G riflith 8 3.
’
84Jany.
’
73 58, 1 1 2 Winter v
TABLE O F CASES.
Grose, Rich v.
PAGE.
G r
gv
gsn
’zr v. Fauset 1 6
Gullifer 3. Vaughan , 2734, 75
Sep.
’
58
Gumbleton v. Jackson , 4Feb.
’
7 1
Gunger, Bagot v .
Gungadeen , Man son v.
Gunness, McConn ach ie v.
Haley, Amos v.
v. Ba ird , SS.C. 1 0 3v. Clark , 5 Nov.
’
60 73, 145Francis
Ha lliday v. Ameerboccus,2 7 Nov.
’
69v. Ch otec, d o .
Dinmah omed v.
v. Gobin ,
’
69v. Ramcalleah , 40 61
’
73Haman , New port v.
Harcourt, De Ha rt v.
Gomes v.
G on salves v.
Joe v.
L i—a—sh e v.
Ma rtin v.
Ramch aranRoberts v.
v. Sillia ,Silvan o v.
H ardeen , G lasgow v.
Harel v. Gouvia , 20 .5 .
’
82
v. Straker,v. Win dt,
Harlequin ,Wood v.
Harman , New port v. 39, 1 1 0
Harrigan , D'
An dradev. De Rouse, 1 9July
’
90
Harris v.Bracey, 26July’
90
D’Aguiar v,
v. King , 1 1 Dec.
’
85Hasting , Win ter v.
Haw ker, D’
Abrio v.
Haynes, Bascomv.
Hayw ood v. Young , 23Feb.
’
67H azzard , Bascomv.
H eerah , Rughonauth v
Henderson v. Jard ine, 29Aug .
’
84Henriques v. An son , 14June
’
89Hen ry v. Solomon , 3Herbert v. Abrah am, 7May
’
86
Heyliger, McPhoy v.
H icken v. G reen sladeHill Da Silva v
v. Klien , 1 1 Sep .
’
69Pequen o v
Small v.
Hillis, G ran t vv. Young ,v. Wells,
H illman , G reen v.
Hin ds, Cumberbatch v
Cumberland v.
v. Frank, 2 Dec.
’
82
v. Lovell, 1 1 1 , I 1 3H in tyen v. Scott, 4, 1 5 2H itz ler v.Clouston , 9 82
H o-a -H ing v. Layton , 9
July’
89Hoare v. Duggin , 1 3 Apl .
’66
v. King , 30 Sep.
’
7 1
Hodge v. McBurn ie , 24April
’
89Nelson v.
Hodgkinson v. B. Guia na
M in ing Co . , 1 8 May’
88
Hodgson v. Ch eesew righ t,2 8 Jun e
’
90
H oh enkerk v. Royen , 5
July’89
H ollingsw orth , a s v.
H olmv Rh od ius 6 O ét .
’
83H on il or Harel v. Straker,9 O ét.
’
69— See H arel
H ookench un v. Alexand er,
9 July’
90 1 0 5, 1 34, 142 , 1 53H oomanan v. Clarke, 5Aug .
’
76
xviii. TABLE O F CASES.
Hope v. Van Cootch , 6
June’
63“
H opkin sv.Tucker,H opkin son , Sample v.
Mendouga v
Horrell, McLean v,
v.
Horton v.Abrah am,v. Ch ester 1 8Aug .
’
60 26, 79, 80
Horton v
Jack v.
Stew art vv. Straker,Young v.
H ossannah David v,
How ard . Rodrigues v.
How ell v. San tos, 1 1 , 82
Hubbard , Con stan tine v
Luis v.
Humph rey, Bah ador v.
Soobrun v.
l l un ter v.Doorgau, 240 61’
74v.Ramsawmy, 24O fl .
’
74"Soomaria v.
Soobtoo v.
H utson v.Robson orRoson ,
1 0 O &’
7 1 . 1 32
Im.Agent Gen l. v. Sh ields,1 6Aug .
’
76— see Crosby
In n is, Fa ria vTh orn h ill v,
Isa acs v. Ch apman , 1 5Sep.
’
83 6, 29, 87, 1 29Isken ius, Bland v.
l tt h smg v. G
8
anga , 1 3 July7
v. Men zies,July 67
Jack v. Horton , 1 5 Mar.’
73 79, 80v. Jack, 30 Dec .
’
68 83v. Joh n , 5 Mar . 1 0 , 78
PAGE.
2 7.44
Jack, Joh nson v.
Jackman , David v.
Greene, 1 5 Dec’60*
aoko v Sarabjeth , 5 May’
8
ackgson , Gumbleton v.
Jacob v. Couchman 2 Feb
v Rigch ards 26.9
’
90
ames v. Adams.v. Cambridge, 14May
’64
De San tos v.
v. Lilmon ie, 31 May’
89 7,43.44, 60 , 1 0 9(th is ca se is d istinguish ed
fromCraigen v. Morgan as
reg ards th e d ifference of
eviden ce required to provelocus of immigrant and
in den tured
James v Telford , 1 6Jan oosing , Kh odoboccus v
Jard in e v. Bolton ,v. Burrow es, 1 0
July’69
v. Cruicksh ank, 6
v. Joaquim, 28
Jun e’61
Hen derson v.
Torrop v.
v Watson , 20 July’
72*
Jeffrey v. Burrow es, 28
Aug . 1 1 , 1 z
Walcott v.
9 3 55’ 3
Win ter v.
Jen auth v. Braud ,
Jessida , Day v,
Jesgyé
v Robb 1 2 Sep.
7 , 8
Jesus v .Brumell 7
v. Darrell, 7 May’
70
Joaquim, But row es v.
Jardine v.
Jod h an v Mearns, 1 9Dec
90 4 8,Joe v. H arcourt, 3Dec.
’’
79
9 7122
Joh n , Jack v.
TABLE O F CASES.
Lamaison , Napoleon v.
Landry. Cuvilje v.
Lang , D'Andrade v
Gran s v.
Nott v.
SurnpjeetLangevine, Sirdar v.
Laroch e, Moorandun v.
Larose , Cruicksh ank v.
Lash ly v. Choung ,Layton , Ah -ch ee v.
Chow drie v.
Da Silva v.
Dos Santos v.
Gon salves v.
v. H in sagay, 2 2
Aug .
Ho-a—h ing v.
v. Joh nson , 1 Sep
Marach ea v.
Mendes v
Patsa v
v. Roh eim, 1 7 July’
91
Santos v
Laurence, Gonsalves v.
Law son v. Westmaas, 1 8
Jan .
Leacock, Colvin v.
De Freitas vD
’
O liveira v.
D’
omellas v.
Lea-ou-a-fat v. Anson, 1 1
JulyLee-a-ong v. Francis, { 1 9Dec.
’
90
Leggatt v. Mattabudal, 27Sep
’
89 43.Lew is v. Cross, 25Aug .
’83
v. Furry, 1 6 Sep .
’65
v.Romeo,Li-a-kin v. Dornford , 1 6
Feb.
’
84Liasv.Harcourt, 7 0 6137 1 "ELig h tv. Ch apman ,
Goring , 9April’
59Lilrnonie, James v.
Liverpool v. Daly,
Lloyd , Naugh ten v.
o-a-ting-to v. King , 14
Dec .
’
72
PAGE.
1 8 Jau.
Logie v. Tramw ays Coy.,
2 7 Sep.
’
89London v. Baird , 6 Feb
’
60v.David , 6
’60
v. Gonsalves, 14Jan .
’
65Stew art v.
Long , Cunn ingh amv.
O nekama v
Lopes v. Backerv. King ,
Lord v. Anson , 29 May’
91Lounck v. Underw ood , 4March
’
65Lovell, Hin ds v
Pistano, 5 June ’
91Low -a-yon , Solomon v.
ow ing or Toyah v. Morancie, 1 1 . (gaming)— See Toma
Luckie v. An son , 1 6 Nov.
’89 1 0 , 29, 1 1 3
v. D’Amil, 1 Nov.
’
89 89, 91 , 1 1 3Luckput 5, 1 0 0Luis v. Hubbard ,Lutch nee v. Cruicksh ank,2 Nov.
’
78
Lynch , Williams v.
62, 641 0 9: 1 34
Macedo v. Anthony, 1 8Mar. ’
65 1 03Romeo,
Mach edo, Teixeira vMack, Frank v.
aclean , Spencer v.
adenov. Dan iel,’69
Mah omed Hossein , Kiern an V.
Mann , Da Silva v.
Kt
flaiilbliiccus v
v. c rk, 0
Mansch ot. Nassadeah v.
33, 5
TABLE O F CASES.
Mansmv. Gungadeen , 23Sep .
’
7 1
Manth orp, Covia v.
De Silva v.
Marach ea v. Layton , 9
July’
89Marks, Reid v.
Marques v. Francis, 1 5
June’88 2 1 , 70 , 82
Marrs v. Sh aw ,1 2Aug .
’
76 91Marsh a l, Admin . Gen l . v.
Martin v. Birch , 2 1 Ja n .
’
65 42 , 64v. Burrow es (Inf.
(convict) 2 2’
81
(carriage)(pen alty)
v. Francis, 2 1 .85*
24.3.88 . .9, 1 0 ,46v. Harcourt
,
‘24May
” 573
v. Joseph , 30 . 1 2 57, 1 20v. Morgan 1 1 8
Massiah v. Peertun sing ,
.
1
Feb.
’
79Pultaroo v.
Mason v. Parnell,Mattabuda l, LeggattMa th eison v. Gray, 1 2 Sep .
’
68 32 54, 65 , 68 7o, I slv.Straker , 20 Jan .
’
69 26, 33Matth ias, Sw a in v.
Math oora v. F1eld , 1 8.3.
’
76Maule, Young v. .
Mavor, Korrimboccus vNeemur v.
Mayv. Mitch ell, 2 7 . 1 0 .
’
87*
Mayers, Adams v.
v. Anderson , 14May
’
8 1 1 2 7v. Moh ungoo , 9
July’
69v. New ton ,4.7.
’
68
v. Poultee, 31 July’
69v. Panea llia ,
Sep .
'
73v. Ruggonauth , 1 3Sep .
’
73Maygh on v. Gooday, 1 2
May’66*
0 0 0 0
v. (w eigh t,bread), 2 7 Jan .
’83
v. Taylor (read Layton)
PAGE.
40 ,41
Mayor Tow n Council,Brath w aite v.
Maxw ell, Young v.
McArth ey, Waterman v
McAllister, De Freitas v
McBurn ie, Hodge v.
McCon n ach ie v. Gunness,1 3 Aug .
’
7 1
McDonnell, De Mattos v.
McFarlan e , Baker v.
McGow an v. Davis, 5 June’
85McInroy, Ferreira v.
McKen z re, Castillo v.
McKenn a v Binn s, 20 May’
82
McKmnon v Stoby, 2 2 Feb’
89McLean , Bh eekh arry v
Budul v.
Dover v.
Horrell v.
’63, reducing fine
to $24, on ground
th at O rd . 20 of’
62
on ly allow s fine and
costs not to exceed
$524, w h ile Mag is
trate ad judged $24fin e an d costs
v. Rebeira ,McNich ol, Ch ristoph er v.
McPh erson v. Th ompson ,1 1 Dec.
’
58
McPh oy v. Heyliger,May 73
*
McTurk, Bracey v.
v. Pulley,Mann v.
McWatt v Hen ry, 1 1 Dec .
’
58*
Mearn s, Jod h an v.
Meerten s, Th orn h ill v.
Men des v. Burrow es, 2 1
May’
77v. La
grton , 5Aug2
TABLE O F CASES.
PAGE.
Men d inh o v. Ch almers, 26Men donca , Clair v.
Duggin v,
v. Hopkin son ,1 5 May
’80
Men zies v. Cressall, 1 8
Dec .
’
76*
Men zies, Itch sing v.
Seew ootulahMerc1er, Youn g v.
Meyers— See Mayers
Mich elson ,Ben v.
Miday, D inmah omedMikia V. dc Laulio, 1 3Apl.
’
7 1“
Miller,Angoo v.
v. Austin , 1 5 .5.’
84"G reig v.
v Wong-a-sam, 26
Aug .
'
65’
1 1 7 , 1 1 8Young v.
Young-a-samv.
Milne , Cassie v.
Mingo v. Cuckow , 1 1 .9.69 3,47M1tch ell, May v.
Turton v
Mohun v. Turner, 1 6. 77 5 1 , 1 34Mohungoo , Mayers v.
Molin eaux v. Schultz, 24May
’
73Mon iek v. Solomon , 1 3
Jan .
’
83Monkh ouse v. Narrain sing ,2 5 Marck ’
82
Mcn trose v. Burrow es, 9Sep.
v. Th eoba ld , 26March
’1 1 , 1 2
Moonah v. Agard , 7 5 .
v. 1 6 O ft.
}57, 64, 87
’
69 90 , 92
Moon ie v. Dornford , 2
Dec .
’
82
Moon ligh t Scrutch er v
Fauset, 1 6 O ét.’
69Mooran dumv. La Roch e,2 2 April
’
76 6 1 , 1 0 8
Moore, Arth urFa n v.
Secar v
Mootrie v. Secar,
Moran cie, Toyah v.
Morgan v.Thorne,Morris, Ramas Kh an v.
Morrison v. Ramdah in , 2 2
Moses, Austin v
Mudd le, Th orne v.
Muller, Emamudh in v
Sew bode v.
Mulligan , Badderan v.
Blank v.
v. Roberts, 1
April’
65Wellington v
Mund lall , Daw son v.
Mungar, Craigen v.
Munro, Young v.
Murdoch v. An son , 1 0 1
Jan .
’
90 1 1 7, 1 1 8~v. Santos,
Jan .
’
90
Mussillah v. Massiah , 29Nov.
’
73Musterd , Watson v.
Najh oe, Luckput v.
Napoleon v. Lamaison 1 8
August’60
Narrainsing,Monkh ouse v.
Nascimento v. An son , 2
Feb .
’
84. 30 , 1 1 7Nassebeah v. Man sch ot, 2 9
Nov.
’
73Cuckow v
Nassebun , King v.
Naugh ten v. Lloyd , 1 6
June’66 23, 56, 63
Ned v.De G uara, 78
v. Syce, 1 9 Sep.
’
68 1 0 , 31
Neemur v. Mavor, 1 0 8Nelson v.Hodge, 9Jan .
’
57Neptune v.Beaton , 1 1
New port v. Haman , 27
Jan .
’
72
New ton , Mayers v.
N ich olson , G arn ett v.
v. Robson , 2 1
Nov.
’
5 7N in ia, Boodhoomin a v.
Nobrega, Samv.
TABLE O F CASES.
Nojh an , Ramjoh n v.
Norton , Bascomv.
ott v. Lang , 8 Jan .
Novel], An drew v.
Now ell, O gle v.
Nun es v. Barn es,Burrow es, v.
v. 5 . 1 2 .909k
Nurse v G arraw ayv. Garn ett, 31 .8,
’
6 1 *
Nussebeah v. Walcott, 29O Et.
’
73*
O ttober , Davson v.
O g le v David , 1 7 May’
62*
v. Now ell, 1 5 Dec .
’
60
O lton v. Ferreira ,Gomes v.
v.Teixeira ,O rd (Man n assah
RoseO uckama v. Long , 23.
O xley, Porter v.
O z anne, Sookh oo v.
Parker v. Evelyn ,
Parkin son , Gordon v.
Parris v. Arthur, 1 1 *
v. Ch eeseman ,
Nov.
’
7 1*
Patoir v. Layton ,
Patrick v. Blasky,Pearce v. Assam*Peertusing , Massiah v.
Pemberton v. James, 1 5
Jun e’67
Pequeno v. Binn s, 2 2
Ma r .
’
83
5 Apl .’
90*
v. Darrell, 28
Aug .
’
68
v. H ill, 28 Nov.
Rogers v.
v. Weddall, 27May
’65
PAGE I
xxiii.
PAGE.
Pequeno, Wrigh t v.
v. Younge,Nov.
’
80
Perciva l v. Tebbutts (bailing appel
’
n t)24Nov.
’
83*
v.Tebbutts 2 Feb7
84Pereira v. Beth un e , 30 Dec.
’
68
Bolton v
v. Davis, . 1 1 1 , 1 2 7De Silva v.
v. Gordon , 1 5 Dec.
’60 *
Rodrigues v.
v. Sw eetn am,Aug .
’
66*
v . Turton ,
Warren v.
v.Williams 2 7Aug .
3
7095
Perot, Cuckow v
Persaud v. Ch ristie
March’
77Pertaub, Wa lcott v
Peter, BascomvPeters, Burrow es v
Ph illip, Gomes vRodn ey v.
Pickerin g , Capel v.
Pile, Pin -a-young v.
Pilgrim, Th orn h ill v.
Pimen to, Sw ain v.
Pin -a-young v. Pile, 24Feb ’
’
78 561 761 78Pistano, Lovell v .
Pompey, 29Aug .
’
66 1 5: 34:46Sw a in v 34, 35v. 6Mar .
’86 } 56, 87
1 1V' Y oung y l 3~5 65
Pitta, De Freitas v.
Politla ll, Ca lla v.
Pompey, Pistano v.
Pon tifexv. Farmer, 8.5 .
’
91*
v. Sw ain ,Pooler, Ch apman v.
Poonach ie, Adams v.
Popw ell v. Barnes, 1 7May.
’
89 9.43. 99. 1 20
TABLE O F CASES.
Porter v. Burrow es, 26
June’89 2 , 1 20
Crosby v.
Goolaub v.
v. O xley, 20 May’
65v.Suramai,v.T211eyah , .1 7Aug
Portsmouth v. Green , 5March ’
70
Potts v. CambridgePoudarsing v. Coyle, 20
1 1 6
54
Ralph v. McPh erson , 1 3March
’
58
Ramalho v. Cressall 2
Dec.
’76
Ramas Khan v Morris 28
March’
90
Ramcalleah , HallidayRamch arran, Crosby v.
v. Harcourt,2418" 74
Ramdah an , Morrison v. .
Ramdaye v. Bascom, 1 2
Aug .
1 23, 1 25
March’
91 1 30 Ramdh ansing , Greig v.
Poultee. Mayers v. Ramessur v Russell, 8 JulyPow ers v.Ruck, ’
85: 40 , 72 ’
82Primo, Williams v. Ramjoh n v. Nojh an , 3Prince v. Greenslade, 1 2 March
Dec.
’
72 Ramnarain , Boodh a v.
v. King, 1 3 July Rampersaud , Soobh arry v.
’80 55, 92 , 1 2 1 Ramsorun v. Sicknurse N .
v.Rickford, 1 3July Caledon ia, 1 9 Dec.
’
84’80 42, 55 , 85 Ramsawmy, Hunter v
Tulman v. Rankin , Jones V.
Pu
l
l
xtaroo, v. Massiah , 2 2 Read , Fairman v. .
g .
’84* Joh nson v. .
Pul
Alil
tlga ll, Coelho v: v. Marks, 1 6.3.
’61 "E
Pun aw ing v. Pile, 2 1 Dec. Reg in a v. Allany, 20 9'
56’
78 78 v. Dunbar,Puncanshun v. Smith , 1 Reid v. Gow an ,June Reiz v. Cuckow , 1 6Jan .
’
69Relva , Bascomv. .
Reynoldsv.Barnett, 66v.Bourne,
Quash ie v. Cuckow , 31 Rh en dany v. Field , 1 Aug .
Dec.
’
70
Quin ta v. Sw ain, 2 Dec. Rh odius, Holmv.
’
82 46, RhAogon aé
ith v. Heira, 1 36
Rh oyonauth v. Clark, 5Aug .
’
76
Raddiah , Carruth ers v.
Ragabone v. Andrew , 2 2
Robin , SempleRobin son , Abdool Poh in v
Aug. Winter v.
v. Rod iah , Robson , Nich olson v.
1 24‘ Roch a v. Binn s, 2 1 Dec .
v. Greenslade,’88 9, 22 , 1 29. 1 37
2 1 .3. 7 1 ..50 , 1 v. D’
ornellas, 2 5Ragbia , Brassington v. Jan .
’
89 99, 1 20Rajutteah v Anson, 8 Feb Rodney v. Ph illips, 2 Jan .
9° 9I
TABLE O F CASES.
Rodneyv. Rodney, 9 Nov"
1 1 Feb.
’68v. Sampson , 29 Sep.’63
Rodricks v. Simmon s, 14Nov.
’82Rice v. Eleune, 23.
Rich v. Grose, 20 Feb . 9 1v. Melville
Rich ards, Jacobs v.
Rickford , Prin ce vRadley, Daniel vRoach , DeSouza vRobb, Jessy v,Robello v. Birch , 2 1 .
Robeira , McLean v.
6S
Roberts v. Harcourt,4OR.
Williams v.
Robertson v. Fraser, 5Sep.
’
84Do. 1 2
Ro drigues v. Backer, 1 6Nov.
’
6 1v. Burrow es, 20 May
5» 39: 1 33
’
87v. Darrell, 26 O ét.
,
6 1 *
v.
’
69 3Darrell v.
v. Fraser,’
63vi?
1 : WH ow a rd 22 Mar .
’
62*
v. Pereira ,v. Young ,
Rogers v.Pequeno, 1 9June’
65 5 2 ,Roh eler v. Bh eekh un ,
731 741 7530
March’
59v. Evelyn , 28Feb
’
74v. Frank 1 2 May
’
9 1Roheim, Layton v.
Roh en , H oh enkerk v.
Rohonauth , Mayers v
Rohory, Gray v.
Edition, Hutson v.
0 0 .
Romao or Ramalho v.
Cressall. 1 8 Nov. 1 25Romeo, Campbell v
Lew is v
Macedo v.
Rootsy v. Field , 1 0 8Rosa v. Joseph , I. C. 1 29Rose v. O rd, 8 June
’
88
Jugranee v.
Tucker v.
Rosin , G ran t v.
Roson , Hutson v.
Ross v. Kin g , 26 Sep .
King v.
Roybia, Brassin gton v.
Royen v. Hoh enkerkRuck, Joseph v.
Pow ers v.
Van Cooten v.
Rughon auth v. Clark, 5Aug .
’
76 42 , 61 , 62v. H eerah 1 20
Mayers v.
Rugh oon , Boodh a v.
Russell, Ramessur v.
Salmon v. Blake ,Etada lly v.
Samv, Nobrega, z 5 .5 .
'
78 1 2
v. Simon , 2 5 May’
78 1 3, 14Sample v. Butts, 2 2 2 , 79
v. Hopkin son , 30
April'
64v.Horton ,
1 6 Nov.
’
7 1*
v. Robin ,
v.Williams, (ass’lt)9 Sep .
’65
(Poor Law )26 Sep .
’
84(informal) 6March
’
64v. Young , 29
Sampson , Davis v.
Rodney v.
Samuel v. Bell, 6 June’
57v. Babb, 1 1 5
Sandford v. Bobb, 1
Santos v Anson , 47,48
TABLE O F CASES.
Santos v. Daniel, 29 Aug .
’
68'
3, 1 8, 97 ) I 24v. Dougla s 4.8.
’
66 62
H ow ell v
Layton v.
1 Murdoch v.
Sa rabjeth , Jacko v.
Saun ders v. Douglas, 4Aug .
’66
Scan tlebury v.~Breen , 30
Sep .
’
76
Sch ultz , Molyn eaux v.
Sc Ip lO v Dunba r,Scott Appollos v.
H in tyen v . .
Sea l, Ew in g Estate CoySecon de , B
a
ngle v.
Secar, Mootree v.
Seejoree v . Th ompson , 4Nov.
’
76
Seeley, Belg rave v.
Seer v. Moore . 2 7 July’69
Seerkesoon v. G ill,29 O ét.
'
68
Seew ootoolah v Men zies,27 July 67
’
Semple— See SimpleSerepaul v. Cruicksh ank,
1 5 April'
82 1 0 , so
Serjean t, Joh n v
Serrao v. An derson , 1 5
Seth v An derson ,
Sew bode v. Muller,Sew soh oye v
, Francis, 1 3
Jan .
’
88
Seyler v. B.G . Mining Co.,
2 1 Jan . 9 1
Sh aw v. Mars
Sh ampaud v. Budely, 5
Jun e 89"
Sh eph erd v. Meepaul, 1
Sep .
’
83Shervmg ton v. Abra h ams,
8 May’
9 1
Stan islaus v.
Sh erw ood v. Williams, 1 2
May’
66*
Sh e ik Esa nb v. Abdool,23 Jan .
’
85Sh ields, Crosby v.
PAGE.
Sh ingalie v. Buck ,Sh ort v. Murdoch ,
Skeete, D ’Aguiar v.
Sicknurse New Ca ledon ia ,Ramsorun v.
Siclra , Harcourt v.
Siegartx, De Freitas v.
Silvano v.Barn es, 88, 97
v. Harcourt, 2 2
Feb .
’
73
v. Wade, 4Simmon s, Roderick v.
Simon , v. Birch ,v. Gouvia , 72 , 1 29Samv.
Simpson v. De Nieunkerk,
28 Mar’
59Will iams v.
Sirdar 29, 64Small Ford v.
v. H ill , 1 0 May’
73v. Sw eetn am, 1 90 thv. Wrigh t,
Smart v. Austin , 28 April
Devon ish v
v.Math ieson , 8 Sep’
81 *
Smith v. Barclay, 1 2 Apl .,
89 235 241 [ 27v. Deen aloolah , 1 6
April’
64v. Dover,Gomes v
Joh n son v.
Pun can shun v.
v. Williams, 24May
Snelling , Blan d v.
Soh run ~v,Humph ry, 7
July’
s8
Solimon v. Cain es, 2 1 Dec .
’
88
v. Garn ett,Solomon , Bush ell v.
Ferg uson v.
Figueira v.
G omes vHen ry v.
xxviii.
Tebbuts, Percival v.
Wills v.
Teixeira v. An son , 1 9Dec .
’
90
Castilio v
Day v.
v. Mach ado.
O lton v . .
v. Sw a in ,
’83Telford , James v.
Th eobald , Mon trose v.
Th illana v. G ardner, 29
Jul)" 7 1Th omas, v. Blan d , 1 8
'
60
Th ompson , G albath v.
Goocool v.
McPh erson v
Seejore v.
Th orne v. Fraser. 1 6. 73Morgan v.
v.Mudd le.Soph ia (pln .) v.
Th ornh ill v. Innis, 2
v. Meertens, 24Dec .
’
69“E
v. Pilgrim, 6Jan .
5;
TABLE O F CASES.
Turton ,D
’Aguiar v.
v. Mitch ell,0 61 .
'87
"E
Pereira v"
Tyce , Ned v.
Tyrell v. Stuart, 1 8.8.60 .
24
Un derw ood , Lounck v.
Unmaid v. Burrow es, 3Feb.
’
83Urquhart v. French , 1 6
Dec.
’
65
'
72 , bound byva lue in Reg .
O flice for’
7 1
Tacour v
Tilleyah , Porter v.
Todd v:Ch ester,Tomside, Arnold v.
‘91 75
Toney v. Daly, 2 O ft.’
69*
Toyah v. Morancie,Apl. 5 1 , 52 , 143.
I I
1441 I49Torrop v. Jard ine, 23. 1 2385 40 , 146Trap v. Green, 3 Apl.
’
57Tramw ays Co. .LogieTucker, Hopkinson v.
2 7
v. Kan sut, 1 2 .9.
'
84v.Rose, 28.3.
’
59Tulman v. Prince. 7 .7 .
’
7 1
Turner, Da Santos v.
Mohun v.
Turnkeyv.King , 27Aug.’
64
28, 30 Wade v. Gon salves, 2934. 62 Ang e
,
90 n o
Silvano v. .
Waith ,
PAGE.
Va lladares v. Bethune, 1 8
Feb .
'
65Va ltz , Jones vVan Battenburg v. Burn
h am, 1 9May’
66
Van Brook v. King , 14Dec.
'
80 24, 27 , 56, 1 0 0 , 1 26, 1 27Van Cooten v. Ruck , 1 8
Sep . 40 , 72Hope v.
Van Dyke, Butler v.
Van Lange, Allicock v.
Vasconcellos v. King , 8
Feb.
’
90*
Vaugh an , Gulliver v.
Hen ry,Verbeke v. Fry,Verw ayen v. Mah abun , 5Nov. 59
*
Vieira , Corry v.
v. G reen slade, 6
Jan .
’
66
Straker v
Vogadov.Burrow es
1 7 May 73"
Vyfhuis v. July et a l, 26
July'
62
TABLE O F CASES.
Walcott, Ch in-a—you v
v. Jeffrey, 2 1 Aug.’69 75
v. Pertaub,
Warren . Bacchus v.
v. Pereira , 1 8
Dec.
'1 5
Watson , D’Aguiar v.
De Guara v.
De Rush v.
Jodh an v.
v. Musterd , 1 0
O ét.’65*
Watt v. Bell, 1 8Ap .l’
57*
Webster v. Birch , 9.4. ’81 . 43, 55Wed da ll, Pequeno v
Welch v. Fraser,Welchman v. Mong ree, 26Nov.
’
81 *
Wellington v. Mulligan , 29July
’
7 1
Wells, D’
O liveira v.
D’
O rnellas v.
v. Tebbut,Wickh amv.
v. Youn g ,Westmaas, Law son v.
Wh ite v. Brumell, 2 1, 1 31
v. G ibson , 53Wickh amv. Bury, 1 0 6
v. Wells,
(evidence h eld not suffi
cien t to susta in convic Pequeno,tion) . Sma llWigh t, Allicock v. Wyke v. Campbell,
Bremner v.
De Freitas v.
~De Graca v.
De Souza v.
Ferreira v
Forsyth v
Francis v.
Williams, Cox v.
v. Douglas, 1 5.3.
Garnett v.
v. Kama], ’
91
v. Lynch , 3 Aug .
35.43. 1 34. xssPereira
PAGE.
Williams v. Primo, 33, 1 32
v. Roberts, 1 6
April’
65Sample v
Simpson ,
Sh erw ood v
Smith v.
Win-samv. Fraser, 8. 69, 96
Wint, Harel v.
Win ter v. Griffith ,v. Hastings, 86v. Jeffrey, 1 2 1
v. Robinson ,1
9 !
v. Waith ,Wolesley, Bob v
Field v.
Wong-a-h oy, An son v.
Wong-a-samv. An son , 1 1
J0 11’
90Evans v.
Ph illips v.
Wong-a-w ing v. Dornford ,29 Dec .
'
83*
Wood v. Harlequin ,Wright, Carrelra v.
Cruicksh ank v
D’Aguiar v.
Da Silva v.
v 2 2 Jan .
’
86 1 7, 1 2 2
14. 40v. Garnett, 90 61 . 62 , 63
'
85
1 23
Y adh an , Straker v.
Y ip-li-King , Burrow es v
Young v. Bertyne, 3. 1 1
v. Bursaye, 2 1 Dec.
6 1 "
Bunbury v.
Cabral v.
Corria v.
CadOgari v.
v. Cow an ,D
’Andrade v.
Young v.
'
Dias,4June '
59*
v.
‘
Gomes,Gon salves v.
v. Horton , 2 1 Dec .
es,
LN “
PAGE.
Youn ge— See Young
Dec .
’
90
Zach aria v. Bacchus, 1 8
LA“,
Lift?“ 1g
ADIGESTO F eAsesDECIDED IN THE
REVIEWCOURTO F BRITISH GUIANAFRO M 1 85 6 TO 1 891 INCLUSIVE.
Aba temen t .
O fWages see MASTERand SERVANT.
Abettor .
O ne w h o in stigates or Sets on or promotes a crime.
Sunday Tra ding O rdin an ce — A person
participa tin g in a sale on Sun d ay a s a buyer is an aider
an d abettor un der Sec . 7 of th e Sun dayTrad ing O rd ina nce. Homes 17 . D
’Aguia r . (R. v. Mu’llins cited for
appella n t an d h eld not applicable . )Th e act of pa rticipation by th e a ider an d abettor does
n ot excuse th e act of th e seller . Genres v. H a rcourt.
Th emere fact th at th e person w h o opened th e sh op orw h o sold or offered for sale or delivered th e goods w a s
in th e employ or service of th e ow n er w ould n ot been ough tomake th e ow n er a n a ider or abettor . DeSti’uZa17 . Francis .
Comp licify.
—Th e O w n er of a sh op w h o is in complicityw ith th e sh opman to sell g oods on Sunday is an aid er
a n d abettor . De Souz a v . Fran cis .
Pressma h Acciden ta l presen ce in a gamblin g h ouse isnot eviden ce t h a t such person is an aider an d abettoi‘.Rama s K h an v . Morris . Wh ere primei fa erie it is not
acciden ta l it is eviden ce for jury ib.
Acconrmcn .
lty of a felon ious offen ce n ot prin cipally ; but
eip'
ation as by premise, advice or contiealm’ent .
ABETTOR. 2 Accommon.
A person w h o acts th e spy an d gets anoth er to sell
goods w h en h e could n ot so sell un der h is licence &c . is an
accomplice. De Rush v. Wa tson .
A11 accomplice is on e ch arged w ith crime on h is ow n
confession an d h is object in giving informationmay beto purch ase ty to h imself . An informer ismoreproperly in th e position of a spy . Pequeno v. Dar rell ;Reg . v. Mullin s, 3 Cox C C 526 . H e is in a different
position to an informer . D’Abrio v . Darrell ; D
’Abriov. Griflin
Eviden ce of.— Th ere is n o rigid presumption of laww h ich excludes th e testimony of accomplices or w h ichmakes it in cumben t on th e tribun al to disbelieve th em.Porter v . Burrow es ; R. v. Boyer 1 B . 9
‘ S. 31 1 ;Wonga-Sa rn v. An son .
Alth ough it is so gen eral a practice th at it is saidalmost to amoun t to a rule of law for Judges to ad visejuries n ot to convict on th e evidence of an accomplicealon e , n everth eless if th e Judge does not give th is
advice, or if th e jury bein g so advil ed ch ooses notw ith
stan din g to convict upon th e testimony of an aecomplice it is n ot a groun d of appeal . Porter v. Burrow es,
but h is eviden cemust be taken w ith suspicion andmustbe corroborated . De Bush v. Wa tson . If h e is believed
h is testimony is unquestion ably sufiicien t to establish th e
facts to w h ich h e deposes . D’Abrio v Grifl
'
in cit.Rosev Jon es 2 Campbell, 1 31 . In dian Evidence Act .If th e jury is satisfied w ith uncorroborated evidence
of accomplice th eymay believe it an d act upon it w ithoutany confirmation and th eir verdictmay be a just and
true on e . Pequeno v. Darrell ; Reg Mullins,3 Cox
CC526 . D’Abrio v. Griffin ; but itmust be received w ith
caution . D’Abrio v. Griffin .
Th e un supported testimony of an informer is not
sufficient to convict . Dick v. Duggin con tra. D’Abrio
v. Dar rell ; Pequen o v. Darrell , cit Taylor on Ev Vol 2p 834R.
'v. Mullins 3 Cox C C p 526. If in former w as
h imself connected th rough th e in strumentality ofDefendan t w ith th e ofien ce ch arged ag ainst th e latter and hiseviden ce is un supported it is n ot sufficien t to convict.Kingston v. Fraser. Th e Mag istra te can convict on th e
ABETTOR. 3 ABSENT Paopmn'roa.
eviden ce of th e in former alon e if h e believes h im. D’Abriov . Darrell ; Mingo v . Cuckow , but itmust be receivedw ith caution . D
’Abrio v. Da rrell .
An in former is a competen t w itn ess . San tos v. Darrell .
Emp loymen t of.— Th e employmen t of Spies an d in
formers in th e detection of crime is on ly justified if a t
a ll by n ecessity. It could n ot be n ecessary to employofficers of th e law to tempt person s to commit a n offen ceagain st th e la w for th e purpose of in formin g on th em,much less is it likely to con duce to th e suppression of
offen ces . Corria v. Green ; Gomes v. H arcourt ; I”Abriov. Griffin Wong
-a-Samv. An son .
Abbrevia tion — See WORDS.
Absen ce .
H older of Licen ce :Absen cefromColony.— Absen ce from
Colony of h older of a licen ce for a spirit sh op does n ot
free himfromliability, provided h e is brough t beforeth e Court in th eman n er th e law requires . Rodrigues v .
Burrow es .
Absen ce of Defen dan t on h earing vitiates proceedings
if h e h as h ad n o n otice ; but Court w ill refer papers to
Magistra te to take objection s . Jardin e v . Burrow es .
Sen ten ce p a ssed in a bsence of Defen dan t w h o a sked th e
Magistra te to allow h imto appear by Attorn ey in a
Revenue ca se an d n o eviden ce w a s g iven of service of
summon s is illega l . Gon sa lves v . Straker .
Sen ten ce on a ch arge for un la w fully cutting ca nes
passed in th e absen ce of Defen dan t is irregular . Th illa n a v. Gardn er .
Sen ten ce a nd proceedings i n absen ce of Defend an t inRevenue prosecution is illegal , a lth ough Defen da nt
sign ed a paper w h en un der ar rest for non appearan ce,con senting to case being h eard in h is absen ce . De
Freitas v . Burrow es .
Of App ella nt in Review Court — Court to decide on
papers before it . Silva n o v. Wade . (Pr a ctice)
Absen t Propr ietor .— See AGENT.
ABSENT . 4Ab sen t fromService .
Ma ster and Servan tAct — Mean s a suspen sion of labour
or absence fromw ork ; if w ith out r ea son able cause th eserva n t refused to performth e amoun t of daily w ork
gh ich th e customof th e district d emands. Hmtyen v.
cott .
Abusive Wor d s .
Pr ivileged : Abusive w ord s used by a w itness w hile h eis un der examin ation in a Court of justice as a w itness
are n ot pun ish able a s libellous . Dundas v . Binns , citLake v . King 1 Saun d ers 1 31 , Daw kins v. Lord Rokebg8 L .R. , Q .B . 255 , 7 L .R. App. 744. Hen derson v. Bremeh ea d4H
,N . 5 69 .
Words w ith cover tmean ing .— Wh ere th e w ords used
a re th emselves unmeaning an d un importan t but th eybear a laten tmean ing un derstood by the .person to w homth ey are used to be offen sive and in sulting th ey comeunder th e h ead of in sulting language w ith in ten t 850.
Reg . v . Allany.
In ten t — Ach a rge for using in sulting languag e w ith
inten t to provoke a breach of th e peace is good . Gard
n er v. Austin . It is for th e Magistrate to determinefromth e w ords used w h eth er th e w h ole elemen t of the
offence exists . Glasgow v . Brandon .
Fr ivolous Ch a rge— Where th e w ords complained of
w ere used in th e h earing of th e party complaining a lone,th emattermay be trea ted as a frivolous on e and dis,missed by th e Mag istrate . Frank v. Da Costa .
Wh ere th e compla inan t’s n ame is n ot called th eMa n '
tra te is to decide w h eth er th e w ords w eremeant forth e complaina n t . Rodn ey v. Ph illips.
Accomp lice .— See ABETTOR.
AcquittaL— Not guilty.
Referen ce ba ck — Before th e Court refers a case back
to t h e Magistra te upon a n a cquitta l itmust appear th atth e a djudica tion h a s proceed ed on somemistake in law .
Daw son v. Gopaul .
AFFILIATION. 6 AGENT.
Afi l ia tion — See Peon LAW.
Ag g r avated Assault .
Age Of Defen da n t— Need n ot be embodied in th e con
viction if th e Magistrate took th e r igh t procedure as
d efin ed in th e O rd in an ce of 1 880 a s to th e age as ch ild,
youn g per son , adul t, Gran t v . Josa .
Proof of age— Itmay be proved by evidence, but the
Magistratemaydetermin e same by th e ph ysical appearanceof ch ild before h imif age of ch ild is a t some con siderabledistan ce fromth e limit . H utson v. Robson .
Furth er— see Assault .
Agen t .
Liability of Princip aL— Aprin cipal is not liable for amisdemean our committed byth e agen t. Isaacs v.Ch apman .
Liability of Pr incip a l w hen a bsen t — See ABSENCE.
Authority to a ct. —Wh ere th e O rdin an ce directs someth ing to be don e by th e prin cipal or by some one
auth orised in w riting by h ima recorded Pow er of
Attorn eyis n ot contemplated , an auth ority stating “I
do h ereby n omin ate, con stitute an d appoin t—my true
an d law ful agen t fromdate is sufficien t . Forsyth v.
Wi h t .
finder Immigra tion Law .~— Th e driver of th e estate is
for th e purposes of th e Immigration law s the agen t of th eMan ager of th e estate w h en h e orders w ork to be done,an d disobedien ce of h is orders is equivalen t to dis
obedien ce of th e orders of th e Man ager . Carruthers v.
Kh oon -Dun -Sing , Ken n edy v. Callydin .
Sunday Tr a ding O rdin ance— Revenue Ca ses — TheDefen dan tmustmake h is an sw er an d h ave h is w itnesses
examin ed an d cross-examin ed by Counsel or by h is dulycon stituted Attorn ey on h is beh a lf an d no oth er person is
auth orised to appea r for h im. Gomes v. Smith .
Queere w h eth er Attorn ey of a bsen t proprietor is liableun der Sun day trading ordin an ce . Gomes v. Francis.
In ca ses for breach of th e revenue law s itmust besh ow n th at th e Attorn ey of th e a bsen t ow n er h asauth ority fromh is principa l to represen t h imunder, such .
AGENT. 7 AMENDMENT.
a prosecution a s th at in w h ich h e appears or in legal
proceeding s gen erally ;mere appearance of th e Attorneyor agen t is n ot sufficien t to cure an omission or irregularity in th e service of summon s w h ichmust th en bespecially proved . Rodrigues v . Bur row es .
Amen dmen t .
Un der 8 . 21 of 5 of 1868 th e pow er of amen dment isvery w ide, goin g beyon d w h at is foun d in th e correspon d
ing clauses of th e English law . Sirdar v. Langevin e .
Magistratemay at any time before decision amen dch arge of larceny to on e of embez z lemen t in con formityw ith facts. Jessy v . Robb .
Of error .
— Wh ere th e Magistr atemakes an error in
calcula ting an amoun t th e Court w ill refer th e case back
for amen dmen t . Cairn es v. Joseph .
Wh ere Defen dan t is convicted of a ch arge under
Sun day Trad ing O rdin an ce , Sec . 2 a nd appeals as un der
Sec . 3 th e error is fatal a nd n o amen dmen t w ill lie .
Gon sa lves v Green .
Amen dmen t of Ch a rg e .
Immigr a tion Ca se — Magistra temay amen d ch arge in
immig ra tion ca ses by in ser ting after objection taken th e
w ord “ immigr an t a fter n ame of th e person a lleged to
be a n immigran t . James v . Lilmon ie .
Prosecution Closed— Va rian ce — Wh er e a ca se is con
clud ed by th e prosecution th e Magistra temay amendch arge by in serting after th e n ame of Defen dan t an
a lia s such amen dmen t being an imma terial va rian ce
an d un n ecessary. D’Aguia r v. Barn es (h eld as distin
guish ed frot omes v . Fran cis w h ere th e amen dmenta ltered th e a lleged groun d of th e Defen dan t
’
s liabilitya n d in fact con stituted a n ew ch arge) but h emustamen d before h is fin a l decision ,
An son v . Stuart, for
w h en h e decides amatter h e is fun ctus ofiicii an d can
n ot amen d , n eith er can th e Court of Review ib. In cases
of amendmen t postpon emen t sh ould be gran ted . Mar .
tin s v . Fran cis .
Un der O rdin an ce 5 of 1 868 Sec. 21 th e Court cannot
amen d ch a rge on w h ich a conviction h as taken place so
AMENDMENT. 8 EXAMPLES.
as tomake a new ch arge. Gomes v. Francis ; Ans0n v.
Stuart. Amen dmen t of ch arge from1881”to 1 882
a llow able. Corner v. An der son .
Defect — Wh ere th ere is a defect in th e in formation insubsta n ce an d formirrespective of th e truth andmeritsof th ema tter in question th e Court of Review w ill amendun der Sec . 21 of 5 of 1 868 : but it is on ly w h ere
tion w as taken upon th e h ea r in g tha t th e Review Courtcan amend un der Sec. 21 O rdin ance o of 1868. Ansonv . Stuart . Wh ere Defen dant is ch arged w ith one offenceand convicted of anoth er it is n ot a d efect but if anyth inga variance an d th e Review Court can not amend underSec. 2 1 . An son v. Stuart. Ch argeun derSunday tradingO rdin ance a fter h earing of prosecutionmay be amendedfromO pen ing a Sh ep for th e purpose of sellingto on e ch arging Defen dan t w ith being th e ow n er
of goods in th e sh op, &c . Martins v. Francis, butDefen dant sh ould be a l low ed a postponemen t to enablehimto answ er th e n ew ch a rge or th e conviction w ill bequash ed ib.
Wh ere th e information ch arges tw o offen ces and th e
Magistrate convicts an d th ere be eviden ce before th e
MagiStrate to convict , the Court of Review w ill amendth e defect . D
’Abreu v. Fran cis.
To amen d a defect itmust be sh ow n to th e satisfactionof th e Cour t th a t sufiicien t g roun ds w ere in proof before
th e Justicemaking th e conviction to h ave authorised th e
d ra w ing up of th e conviction free fromth e defect. For
th at purpose th e Court h as to look at th e eviden ce . Bysufficien t proof itmust be un derstood tomean sufficient
g roun ds of legal proof. Seegoree v. Thompson .
Wh ere ch arge is bad for du‘
plicit and th e duplicity isa defect in terms of Sec . 3 of rdin ance 5 of 1868th e Court of Revie wmust amend if it is sh ow n to
th e satisfaction of th e Court th a t sufficien t grounds w erein proof before the justice inmaking th e conviction .
D’Abreu v . Fran cis .
EXAMPLES.
Tra de of Hire.-Th e Review Court a llow ed an
AMENDMENT. 9 EXAMPLES.
amendmen t from“ trade or h ire to“ h ire in Gon
salves v . An son , cit. D’Abr en v. Francis.
Shop — O f ch arge for being foun d in a sh op for
some unla w ful purpose, to store by th e Magistra te
allow able. Popw ell v. Barn es .
Immigra timz..— A ch arge un der41 of 1 876,Sec . 1 9 fo r
a ttemptin g to persuade an immig ran t under in den tureun law fully to desist fromw orkmay be amen ded to on e
for persuadin g”an immigra nt , &c. Spen ce v . Sa toh a .
A ch a rge for attemptin g to persuade a n immigran tfromw orkin g ,may be amen d ed to one for “
persuading .
”
Greig v . Ramdh an sing ; cit. Ma rtin v. Francis.
A ch arge again st an immig ran t for after being sen t
to th e h ospital by th e Ma na ger did beh ave h imself ina disorderlyman n er w h ile in h ospita l may be amen ded
by strikin g out after bein g sent to th e h ospital by th e
Manag er .
” Spen ce v. Sa toh a .
H a ckn ey 0r0Mn an ce.— Wh ere th e h ackn ey ord inan cemakes it an offen ce to refuse to at on ce take th e
carriag e to th e office of th e In spector an d th e ch arge is
for r efusin g to produce th e ffhackn ey carriag e for“ in spection
”th e Magistrate sh ouldmake an amen dmen t on th ematter bein g broug h t to
_h is n otice .
Roch a v. Binn s, if not, th e Review Court w illmake th eamen dment ib.
Sunday Trading — Leaving out“
th e w ord Sun dayin ch ar 6 un der Sunday trading ordin an ce is amatterfor amenment . Da
‘
Silva v . Wrigh t . Th e case of DaSilva
‘
v . Graves is over ruled by th is case . Da Silva v.
Graves is n ot govern ed by th e amen din g ordin an ce as it
w a s d ecided4years before t h e ordina n ce.
Fromopenin a sh ep, &c ., to being th e o w n er ,
& c . ,a llo w able. artin v. Fran cis .
Refusing Admittance.—Wh ere th e ordinan cemakes it
a n Offen ce to refuse admittan ce to a policeman “ in
th e premises and th e cha rge states “ in to an d upon th e
premises th e Cour t of Revie w w ill amend un der 5 of
1 868 . D’Abreu v. Fran cis.
Dama ge.— Ach arge statin g th at Defen dan t committed
damage, in jury and ,
Spoil may be amen ded to any on e
term. Joseph v. Ruck.
AMENDMENT.1 0 AMENDMENT.
Mislea ding Defen da n t— Wh ere an amen dment ismade
th roug h a ch a rge h avin g been stated defectlvely an d
Defen dan t’
s a tten tion is called to such amen dmen t an d
Defen d an t sta tes before th e Magistra te th at h e w as notmisled by such amen dmen t h e h a s n o righ t O f appeal on
th e gr oun d of such amen dmen t . H odg son v . Ch eese
w r ig h t .
Postp on emen t — Defen dan t is en titled to a postpon emen t on amen dmen t of ch arge . Pequeno v . Binn s
Martin v . Fra n cis .
Per son to amend .— Th e actual h an d to make th e
amen dment is n ot limited to any particular person .
Fong-a-Lon g v . Ch an dler .
After fia t — Th e amen dment of a ch arge after fia t of
Attorn ey Gen era l an d service on Defen dan t is a fatal
defect . Serepaul v . Cruicksh an k, but th e amendmen t ofth e ch ristian n ame of Defen d an t on a revenue prosecution
after fia t of Attorn ey Gen era l does n ot preclude Mag ist ra te fromadjudicating . Cruicksh a nk v . La Rose .
Fur th er see FIAT .
O n excess of Jurisdiction .~ Wh ere th e Magistrate
exceed s h is jurisdiction by inflictin g a h eavier fin e th an
th e la w a llow s h im, th e Court of Review w ill n ot amendth e proceedings by inflicting a smaller pen alty for tw orea sons . 1 . Th a t Defen da nt w ould h ave to pay th e fin eor g o to th e expen se an d trouble of appealin g an d th en
pay th e sma ller pen a lty.2. Th at except th e conviction
w a s quash ed it w ould deprive h imof h is righ t of action
again st th e Magistra te for excess O f jurisdiction . Eppiliev. Bur row es (con viction un der 31 of 1850 See . Seeca se of Luckie v . An son un der h ead CONVICTION .
Wh er e th e Mag istrate imposes a fin e of $24an d
costs $2 1 13 for a ssault a nd th e ordin an ce 20 of 1862 Sec.
43 on ly auth orises imposition of a fine not exceeding $24tog eth er w ith costs if ordered , th e Court w ill amend theconviction to $24in full . Ned v . Syce .
Felmiously.
-Add ing th e w ord felon iously in ch arge
of larceny n ot a llow able after tria l but, before trial . Jack
v . Joh n : furth er see FELONIOUSLY.
To foun d jurisdiction . See JURISDICTION .
O f convIctl on . See CONVICTION.
AMICUSComa . 1 1 APPEARANCE.
Amicus Cur iae.
If a Judge is doubtful ormistaken in ama tter of la w
a bystan dermay in formth e Cour t a s amica s curiae .
Not Recogn iz ed except on comin g fromth e Ba r O f th eCourt, an d private communication s to a Judge on judicialbusiness h ow ever legitimate in th eir Object are irregula rand un desirable . Ferreira v . McInroy.
Magistra te h ea rd as of amica s curiae on a rule requiringh imto forw ard proceeding s. H ow ell v . Sa ntos.
Appea l — SEE REASONS.
Appear an ce — O E DEFENDAN T.
In Revenue Ca ses n ot n ecessary on th e h earin g or
adjudica tion , Gomes v. Burrow es . Wh er e Defen dan t doesn ot appear , th e Mag istratemay proceed ea pa r te on proofof service of summons or issue w arran t according to
discretion rib.
Th e appearan ce of a person bea ring th e same n amea s th e Defendan t , by h imself or Counsel amoun ts to n omore th an a sta temen t th at Coun sel represen ted th e
person w ho h ad been served ; it does n ot sh ow th e
appearer to be th e personmen tion ed in th e summon s .
Games v . Clarke.
O N PBO NOUNCIATIO N or JUDGMENT .
Magistrate n ot boun d to give parties n otice of pro
noun ciation of judgmen t . Cuckow V. de Jesus.
IN REVIEW COURT .
Wh ere th e parties do n ot appear , th e Review Cour t isstill to decide th ema tter on th e papers submitted . Montrose v . Th eobald , Lash ly et a t v . Ch ung (Gold cases.)In H arel v . Govia it w as h eld th a t w h ere th e par ties do
n ot appea r in th e Review Court t h e Mag istrate’
s decisionmust be affirmed , an d in Moon ie v . Dorn ford it w a s laid
tha t w h ere th e Appel lan t does n ot file h is rea son s w ith inth e period a llow ed , th e Courtmust dismiss th e applica
tion for review .
APPEARANCE. 1 2 ARREST.
IN GOLD AMINING CASES.
Alth ough n o par ticular l imit is prescribed as to
th e exten t of opportun ity of appear in g w h ichmay bea llow ed in g oldmin in g ca ses, it is clear ly n ot in tended
th a t th e n on -appea ran ce of parties (on appea l) sh ould
keep ama tter open in defin itely. Mon trose V . Th eobald .
Cr PROSECUTOR.— See PROSECUTOR.
Ar r est .
Restrain t of a man ’
s person , obligin g h imto be
obedien t to th e law , execution of a comma n d of someCour t of r ecord or officer of justice , th e beginn ing ofan imprisonmen t by colour of a w arran t or decree of a
Cour t .
Discr etion a ry Pow er .—Magistrate h as discretion ary
pow er to ord er arr est upon in formation s for petty ,
offen ces Rodn ey V . Ph illips, but th is course sh ould not
be resorted to un less th ere is some Specia l r ea son ib.
Without Wa r ra n t, obj ection n ot taken — Wh ere De
fen dan t is illega lly ar rested an d brough t before th e
Magistrate on a legal ch arge, an d takes n o objection toh is bein g in custody a t th e time , an d plead s to th e
ch arge a nd bear s evid ence , h e can not plead such illegal
custody before th e Review Court . SamV . Nobriga .
No obj ection a llow ed — Wh ere a Defen dan t is brough t
before a Magistrate on a proper ch arge , it is immaterialWh eth er th e officer w h o brough t th e Defen da n t before
h imw a s justified in doing so or n ot . Lutchn ee v . Cruick
sh a nk (cit . Bow ditch V . Fosberry, 1 9 L .J . Ex. 339 ; Gelen
V . H a ll 2 N . 85 H . 379 ; 27 L .J. , M .C.
Wh eth er a prison er is lega lly or illeg a lly a rrested on a
w a rran t is imma ter ia l for th e Mag istrate to decide ; beingbefore th e Justice , h ow ever brough t th ere, th e Justice
if h e h a d jurisdiction in r espect of time an d place over
th e offen ce , is competen t to en tertain th e ch arge th en
before h im. Morr ison V . Ramdah in, (cit . Reg . V . Hughes ;
Reg . v . Bolton .)Plea of illega l a r rest sh ould be taken before th e
Magistra te ; Lutch n ee V. Cruicksh a nk.
A’
tSAULT. 14 PEACE O FFICER.
of beatin g th e'
con stable in th e execution of h is duty.
Samv. Simon .
Wh ere an ow n er of a n estate is served With a notice
to do certain repa irs on a road an d did n ot so repair,
an d th e road officer sen tmen to repair an d th ey w ere
order ed off by th e ow n er , a n d th e road ofiicer came upan d th e h or se w h ich th e ow n er w a s r idin g a t th e time w as
n early put in to th e tren ch by th e road officer , h eld on a
ch a rge of a ssault th at th e ow n er h ad no righ t tomolest orobstruct th e road officer or h is w orkmen in th e per
forman ce of a duty primé fa cie legal , an d h aving don eso, th e road officer h ad a righ t to remove th e obstructionand h e w as n ot guilty of excessive violence, and used
th at force on ly w h ich w a s sufficien t an d nomore . Youngv. Miller .
Not Justifiable.— Where th e ch arge laid is informal
or unfounded an d is dismissed , it is no excuse for assault
ing th e con stable in th e execution of h is duty. Scipiov. Dunbar .
It is n o defen ce to urge th at th e con stable w a s in
plain cloth es an d w ith out a staff ; Dover v. Fraser ,but itmust be sh ow n in eviden ce th at at th e time of th ea ssault th e person a ssaulted h ad th e status of a Peace
officer . G reen v. Hillman .
An Assault is not justifiable by provoking w ords ;Clouston v . Fraser , Da Silva v. Pereirra.
Queere w h eth er it is a defen ce if con stable w as
a ssaulted on arresting Defendan t for an Offence for w h ichh e could n ot be arrested , such as smoking in a ch urch
yard . Zitman V. Backer .
To pr event a levy on w ages due by an estate to an
immigran t is an un law ful resisting of th e officer in th e
execution of h is duty. Burrow es v. Craw ford .
After a Commissary h asmade a seizure an d h e is
a ssaulted tech n ica lly or oth erw ise, th ema tter is on e ofcommon a ssault an d not a n a ssault in th e execution of
h is duty . Cor ria v. Green slade .
Wh ere th e Policema n exceeds h is duty, such a s shuttingup a sh op, w h en h e is n ot auth orised by th e ordin ance,h e cannotma in ta in a ch arge for a ssault in execution 850 .
Da Silva v. H ill ; Samv. Simon . A policeman is not
ASSAULT. 1 5 AGGRAVATED.
protected w h en h e does an act w h ich th e law does not
auth orise h imto do ; nor is be protected w h en h e usesun law fulmean s for effectin g a la w ful purpose , De Freitasv . McAllister .
O n a ch arge for assaulting a peace officer in th eexecution of h is duty, Defen dan t cann ot be convicted of
common assault . Edw ard s V . Cambridge .
In citing— Wh ere a Defen dan t says to a con stable w h o
h a s ch arge of a prisoner , if th e prison er gets aw ay fromyou n o body h a s a r igh t to arrest h im, h emay be con
victed of “ in citing ,”but th e w ords w ould not suffice to
con vict h imof resisting th e con stable in execution , &c . ,
or of a breach of th e peace . McPh erson v. Th omsonet d l.
Force used inmaking a rr est. -Wh ere an arrest is
lega llymade th e con stablemay use force to overcomeresistan ce, but n ot a ll or any kin d of force ; h e is not
to bea t, w oun d , &c . , th e person h e h a s in ch arge .— De
Freitas v. McAllister .
Assa ult in pr esen ce of Con sta ble — Wh ere an assault is
committed in presen ce of a con stable an d h e arrests an d
is assaulted , it is n ot n ecessary to sh ow th a t th e a rrest
w a s a bsolutely n ecessary, or th at a furth er ormoreaggravated breach of th e peace w ould h ave been committed if th e a rrest h ad n ot beenmade . Gon salves v.
Fox .
Justifica tion under Wa r ra n t.— Wh en a n oflicer justifiesth e assault or arrests under a w a r ran t, such w arran tmustbe produced . Rodn ey v . Sampson .
AGGRAVATED.
It is un necessary th at th e particulars of an aggravated
a ssault sh ould be set out in a ch arge. Neptune V.
Benton ; Pistan o v. Pompey.
Wh ere th e Magistra te certifies or declares O n th e face
of th e proceeding s for agg rava ted a ssault, th at h e is of
Opinion th at th e age of t he ch ild does n ot exceed 14yea rs, th e Review Court w ill n ot interfere w ith h is
conviction , ih .
Un der Section s 43, 44of offen ces ag ain st th e person
O rdinance 1862, th e term“aggrava ted” is used to describe
SAULT. AUTREFOISACQUIT.
an a ssault of such a n ature th at it can n ot in th e opinion
of(th e Mag istr ate tryin g th e ch ar e be sufiimently
pun ish able a s a common a ssault . h e Mag istra te can
deal w ith th e a ssault a s an a gg ravated on e in respect of
th e facts emergin g a t th e h earin g , even alth ough th e
in forma tion h ad n ot so described it . Gilbert V. Bar nes .
Wh ere th e ch arge is for “assault o n a female, th e
Magistrate h as a r igh t if eviden ce is sufi cien t , to con vict
of a n agg ravated a ssault . Rod rigues v. Pereira .
DISPUTED TITLE.
Magistra te h a s n o jurisd iction for assault in ya rd in
dispute of title . Sample v . H opkin son .
Where th ere is a w elt-foun ded an d bond fide in terest in
proper ty , an assault in la w may still be committed .
Lon don v. Ba ird .
Furth er— see JURIsDIOTIO N .
At O n ce — See WORDS.
Attor n ey .— See AGENT .
Auction eer .
Not liable for pen a lty for acts un der th e Tax O rdina nce (w h eth er is h e liable un der O rdin a nce 9 of 1 844,not decided .) De Jon ge V . Dar rell .
Auth or ity— fromprin cipal un der Crow n Lan ds .
Autrefois Acquit .—Convict .
Referen ce Ba ch — Wh ere a case (n ot indictable) ish eard an d th e decision is appealed from, an d on review
th e Mag istra te’
s d ecision IS reversed an d th ematter isremitted back to be re-h ea rd , a n d on r
‘
e-h earing byan oth er Mag istra te (th e first con victing Magistrateh aving left t h e Colony) a nd h e convicts , it is n ot a case
of a ut a c. De Souz a v . Sw a in ; De Fa ria v. Sw ain.
Wh ere th e Magistra te dismisses a ca se on th e groun dof supposed ouster of jurisdiction and th ema tter isreferred back to
”
h imby th e Review Cour t, th e true
AUTREFOIS. ACQUIT.
con struction of th e order of th e Court reversing th eMagistrate
’
s order dismissing th e ch arge is,th at it
efiaces th e Magistrate’s order of dismissal an d rein sta tes
th e proceedin g s before h imin th e same position as ifh e h ad n otmade th e order . Glasgow v . Kryen h off.Idemw h en ch arge is w ith draw n by Complain an t w ithout opposition by Defen dant an d w ith out h is askin gfor a decision on th e w ith dra w n ch arge . (N0 bar tosubsequen t proceedings .) Sample v. Butts .
Wh ere th e eviden ce on a case of a ssault before th e
Magistrate sh ow ed a bruta l unprovoked battery, an d th e
Magistrate dealt summa rily w ith th ema tter in stead of
referring to a h ig h er Cour t, th e Review Court qua sh edth e conviction an d directed h imto refer th e ca se to th e
In ferior Crimin a l Cour t. An drew v . Novel .
A Cer tifica te of Dismissa l a s again st B is n o bar
to subsequen t proceedin gs w h ere th e Magistrate dismisses a ch arge ag ain st A, an d th e same prosecutor asks
th at a ch a rge again st B on th e same g roun ds sh ouldbe w ith draw n , an d th e Magistrate refuses to a llow w ith
draw a l on objection by Defen dan t a n d dismisses case
an d gran ts certificate of dismissa l . Wrig h t v. De Silva ,
(cit . H aw kin’
s RC. 0 . 35 , s . Sec . 20 of O rd . 19 of
1 856 read w ith Sec . 3 of 5 of 1 868 .
Wh er e th e Magistra te acts on an hypoth esis an d
n o va lid conviction could be passed on such h ymoth esis, en try of dismissa l is n o bar to subsequen t proceedings, ih .
Dismissa l by th eReview Cour t for w an t of prosecutiondoes n ot amoun t to a fin al sen ten ce, an d reviewmay bereh eard on prayer for relief by petition onmerits sh owing th at h e did n ot r eally aban don h is case , but Wasmisled , or oth er excusable a rgument . Williams v.
Roberts et a l.Aplea of Autrefois a cquit on a ch arge for assault
does n ot ar ise on a ch arge for assault of a policeman inexecution of h is duty.
” Edw ards v. Cambridge .
Proof— O u a plea of a n t a c. or con vict, th e on ly legal
proof of conviction or d ismissa l is th e record or officialcopy. De Gracia v. Wigh t, cit . H ar tley v. Hindmarch ,LR. 1 , c P
Aurssrors Comer. 1 8 BILL O F ENTRY
Cour ier .
Jur isdiction — Wh ere Defendant is convicted and 5 11 011
conviction is quash ed on th e groun d th at th e Mag istrate
h ad no jurisdiction , th e first conviction is not a bar to a
subsequen t prosecution on th e same set of facts. Da
Silva v. Layton .
Sepa r a te ofi'
encea — Wh ere Defen dan t 18 ch a rged w ithkeeping4dogs w ith out licen ces on differen t ch arges, th econ viction for keepin g on e of th e dogs w ith out a licen ce
can n ot be pleaded a s an t con . Da Silva v. Burrow es.
Wh ere th ere are several sa les on Sunday by th e sameperson at th e same sh op, th ere can on ly be on e convietion . San tos v. Darrell. (Cit. Crapp v. Dundorn , 1 ,SL C 649 ; Attorney Gen era l v. McLean 1 H 85 CWh ere defendan t is cha rged for using indecen t expres
sion s an d gestures on th e public road and a lso formakinguse of lan guage tending to provoke, and th e offences
are both parts of one and th e same transaction , a convic
tion on one ch arge puts an end to th e oth er . King v.
Ashby.
Ba il .
Parties are generally bailed b the Magistrate w hen
referred to a_
h igh er Cour t. hen not so h ailed a
petition is sent to th e Ch ief Justice w ho refers th e sameto th e Attorney Gen eral for h is report, and on h is reportth e order ismade. Bail is th en to th e satisfaction of the
Sh eriff or Crow n Solicitor . Th e Bail Bon d run s th roughth e session th ough prisoner surrenders to bail .
Bastardy .— SEE Poos LAW.
Bil l of En try .
Erma — Bill not truly disclosing goods is false, w h eth erth e amount of dut payable is or is not afiected by themisdescription . ustoms v. Fresson .
Time to Produce.— Th ere is no limit as to th e time in
w h ich th e Comptroller or Sub-Comptroller can ca ll on animporter to produce invoice un der sec. 90 of O rdinance1 6 of 1 884. McGow an v. Davis.
BARRISTER. 19 Busmsss PREMISES.Bar r ister — SEE LEGAL PRACTITIONER.
Bitter s .
Not a d rug . Gon salves v . De Freitas.
Brea ch of Con tra ct — SeeCommonBrea ch of th e Pea ce— See SURETY.
Breach of th e Law
By a person does not preven t h is prosecuting for a public w ron g to h imself, such as an assault. Bah adoo v.
Humph reys ; Sobriun v. H umph reys.
Brea ch of Trust .
Lawful Emma — Un der ordinance 1 7' of 186 1 , sec. 1 ,theremust be a n eglect to performth e con tract w ith in a
rea son able time, and neg lect or refusal to return th e
articles, &c., given to be repaired , &c., w ith out la w fulexcuse . H arris v. Bracey.
If th e Defendan t is g rossly negli’
en t in exposin g th e
w ork en trusted to h imso th at it is jured ; th is w oulddeprive h imof th e excuse . 1b.
Brea d — Seller O L— See WEIGHT MEASURE.
Build in g .
Alth ough in th e trespass law th e w ord “ building . does
not appear th e w ord premises” includes buildings.”
Th orn h ill v. Pilgrim; Ch apma n v Pooler .
Buyer . See Assrros .
Busin ess PremiSes .- How interpreted .
Th e termbusiness premises”must be in terpreted
according to th e subjectmatter an d allocation .
'
Fern an des v. Green slade . Itmay include any part of th emost exten sive buildings, enclosures, w h arves, &c . , w h ich
by use occupation , structure or en closure are subservien t
to ormerely conn ected w ith a sh op, an office or oth er
C
BUSINESSPREMISES.20 BUSINESSPREMISES.
place of busin ess. Itmaymean on th e.
oth er h an d th e
very sh 0p, office or place of actual busmess formmg apart an d often an in sign ifican t part as regards positlonor structure of such premises . Itsmean in g aga inmaybe a scertain able by exten sive applica tion and r estriction
var iable a ccording to th e circumstan ces of each case,
but con formin g to some gen eral principle or in terest tobe a scer ta in ed by th e O rd in an ce. Fernan desv.Green slade.
Liability of 0w n er .— Th e occupier of th e sh op is
liable for rumfoun d , w ith out any scien ter or proof th ath e w a s aw are of th e rumbein g secreted as h e h as fullcon trol over th e premises a nd persons h aving access to
th em, an d by due diligen ce can take care th e rumw asn ot un laivfully brough t th ere. Batiste v. Burrow es.Idema s to places w h ere h e possesses and is entitled toexercise th e like con trol if h e ch ooses ib but th eremustbe exclusive righ t of occupancy ib.
WHAT ARE BUSINESS PREMISES.
Th e w ords business premises under t he licen ce ordin a nce in cludes any roomor place adjoining or adjacentto any store or sh 0p. But th ose w ords cann ot be con
strued to in clude any place n ot in th e occupan cy of the
person again st w h omth e ch arge is directed , th e prosecatormust Sh ow th at it w as in th e occupan cy of Defen dan tor in any event th at due en quiry h ad failed to discoverany oth er occupan t. D
’
O liveira v. Burrow es citingD
’
orn ella s v. Leacock. D’
O rn ellas v. Wills not applicable .
Tw o con tiguous Premises.— A licen ce does n ot cover
sale of spirits in tw o separa te h ouse on same lot.Pequen o v . H ill .
ABridge attach ed to a sh 0p and a portion of th e sh 0pis a place ad join ing or adjacen t to th e store or shop.
D’
O rn ella s v . Wills.
A,Roomin w h ich g in w as foun d immediately above
th e sh op, w h ere a trap door communicated fromth esh op to th e roomin w h ich g in w as found . Arnold v.
Gomes et a l ; even w h en gin w a s in small quan tity, 35pin ts an d 2g pin ts bran dy, an d boug h t a s alleged
BUSINESSPREMISES. 22 CARRIAGE, &O .
CHARGE.
Wording ofi— May be for h avin g rumin th ebusin ess premises or on busin ess premises . D
’
O rnellas v. Wells ; D
’O rn ellas v . Leacock. D
’
O liveira v. Burrow es ; cit . D
’O rnella s v .Wells ; it sh ould state Defendant
to be th e occupier of th e business premises. Culverh ouse v, Darrell .Time for bringing ch arge for h aving rumO n business
premises to be w ith in 30 days . D’
ornellas v. Leacock.
By-L aw .
Authority to Act.— A Police Con stablemay act on a
by-law of h is ow n notion , but if directed to do a n act byh is superior Officer th e act don e by h imis th e act of th esuperior Officer . Roch a v. Binn s.
Can e Tops
Not subject of larceny. Sample v. Butts. See Larceny Grow ing CrO ps.
Cap tion .
Th at part of a legal instrument, as a commission ,in dictment, &c., w h ich sh ow s w h ere an d by w h at authority it is taken , foun ded or extracted .
It sh ould Sh ow th e Magistrate’
s district, so th at it
sh oul d appear th at th e case fell w ith in h is jurisdiction .
Rodn ey v. Sampson .
Ca r r iag e, Ca r t , H or se, & c.— LIOENOESFOR.
Use— 0nus. —Wh ere th eTax O rdinance enacts th at anyperson w h o keeps an d uses or ow n s and permits to beused any ca rriage Sh a ll take out a licence, th e prosecutingO flicer n eed n ot prove a using if h e proves that th e
carriage w as found on Defen dan t’s premises. Th e onus
of proving th at it w a s n ot used lies on Defendant . Gonsalves v. An son .
Under O rdin an ce 5 of 1855 , sec. 5 , th e onus of prov
ing th at amule w as not used for h ire is on Defen dant.
CARRIAGE, &O . 23 CARRIAGE, & O .
Smith v. Barclay. Idem, permitted to be used . Goolav. Dorn ford .
rence.— Ach arge for keeping an d using for trade
or h ire a carriage and did th en an d th ere fail w ith out law fulexcuse to take out a licence to keep th e same” infersth at th e failure of th e taking out O f th e licen ce is w ithrespect to th e carriage . Gonsalves v. An son .
Th e eviden ce th at Defen dan t ow n ed an d permitted a
donkey and cart to be used is n ot sufficien t to convict h imof an offence for keepin g an d using for th e purpose oftrade . Marach ea v. Layton .
Er otica — Th e failure to take out a licen ce for th e fin ancial year is not exon erated because th e ch arge is brough t
after a n ew finan cial year h as begun an d a n ew O rdinan ce
passed before th e case is proceeded w ith . King v. Cush .
Th e keepin g a nd using tw o car riages w h en th ere is
on ly licen ce for one is an infraction of th e O rd in ancean d it is n ot necessary to prove th at Defen dan t used th etw o carriages on th e same day. Fra ser v. Brebn er ;Martin s v. Burrow es ; Men des v . Layton .
It is n o Offen ce to use in on e coun ty a h orse an d
carriage for w h ich a licen ce h ad been taken out in a noth er
coun ty, even if th e user is n ot th e h older of th e licen ce .
Nott v Lang .
Ah earse is not a four-w h eeled car riag e liable to licen ce .
Sw ain v. Matth ias. (Repea led _
by Tax O rdin an ce .)Use of esta te
’
s h orse by th eman ager for h is ow n purpOse is a user w ith out licen ce by th emanager . Duggin
v. Craw ford .
Keeping an d using a cart is an Offen ce . Permittin g itto be used is anoth er Offen ce . Men des v. Layton .
Agen cy.— Acart d riven by Defendan t
’s son for purposes
of Defendan t is in law a driving by Defen dant gui facit
p er a liamfa citp er se. An son v. Stuart . Wh ere Defendan t
’
s boy usesmule, some evidencemust be given to Sh owor at least to lead rea son ably to th e inferen ce th at such
use w as by th e in struction or in th e employmen t of th eDefendan t . Men des v. Taylor .
Name of 0w n er .— An employé O f estate is n ot person
a lly liable if n ame O f estate is not leg ibly pain ted on car t.
30 of 1 866, s.44. Grant v. Lang ; Naugh ten v. Lloyd .
CARRIAGE, & O . 24 CERTIFICATE.
Leaving horse gc. on p ar ap et of public road is an offence
under 20 of 1 856. Parker v . Evelyn .
TRADE PURPOSES.
Wh ere a h older of a pr ivate licence to use a donkeyan d cart, &c . con tracts to supply amon gst oth er th ingsmilk to a h ospital , h e is a trader inmilk an d liable for
usin g h is donkey an d ca rt , 850 . w ith out a licen ce for
trade, if h e conveys th emilk to th e h ospital by such
cart . Patoir v . Layton .
Idem.— Wh ere th e proprietor of an O il factory carries
cocoanuts to th e factory in h is car t. Smith v. Barclay,follow ing Mayers v . An derson ; (citing Re Wa tts ea: p .
Sully 14Q.E.D .
Idem— Wh ere a person cuts cord w ood a nd sells th e
same to an estate an d conveys th e w ood in a cart for
w h ich h e h olds a private licen ce, h e is liable to a con
viction for using a cart for purpose of trade. An son v.
Stuart.Idem— Wh ere bread is conveyed fromsteamer stel
ling to Defendan t’s sh O p. Mayers v. An derson .
Idem— If h emakes bread an d supplies h is customersw h o keep sh O ps. King v. Nasebun .
Idem— Wh en corn ed h assas are sold in th e cart. Van
Brook v. King ; con tra if h assas w ere fresh , ib.
Ca se .
Th ere is no provision in th e O rdin an ce or Rulesen abling a Magistrate to state a case for th e ReviewCourt. Greene v. Braz ao .
ca ttle .— SEE POUND.
Cer tifica te .
Of Dismissa l .— Defen d an t is en titled to a certificate of
dismissa l of th e ch a rg e w h en th e complain an t refrain sfromofiering eviden ce . De Freita s v . McAllister et a l.
(cit . Reg . v . Wiltsh ir e Justices 8 B . C. 380 Bradshaw
v . Va ugh ton , 30 L .J . C.P. N . S. 93 ; Tun niclifi’e v. Tedd,
5 CB.
CERTIFICATE. 25 COMPLAINT.
Of Dismissa l ; case n ot p roved , equals dismissal onmerits an dmay be amen ded to a dismissa not onmerits .
”Dan iel v. Day.
Of Commissa ry — Admission of— See EVIDENCE.
Of Magistra te.-O th er th an certificate O f dismissa l is no
part of th e proceedin gs in Review an d cann ot be looked
at . Gomes v . Burrow es .
Of Receiver Genera l . -See EVIDENOF.
AS a bar to furth er proceedin gs — See Aut. Acq.
Ch apel , Ch ur ch .
A licen ce is not required for a lecture given by th eMin ister O f a Ch urch on a h istorical or religious subjectillustra ted by th emagic lan tern for ra isingmon ey torepair th e Church or to ligh t or clean th e same . Gibbon s V Straker (cit. Bar ter v . Langley, L .R.4s C.P .
Smoking in a ch urch yard does n otmake th e Offen deramen able to arrest by a con stable for disorderly con duct .Zitman v . Backer .
0fien ces .-Wh ere a person persists in an act in a
ch urch ya rd inn ocen t in itself, but in decen t in respect
of time an d place an d oth er circumstances, h emay beremoved at th e in stan ce of th e Min ister or oth er personin auth ority ib. (cit . H aw e v. Plann er , l San d . 1 3 Com.Dig . Esglise F.
Ch a r g e See INFORMATION .
Ch a r ge .— Amendmen t of.— See AMENDMENT.
Cocoa nut .— See GROWING CROP— LARCENY.
Commissary .
A Sub-Commissary is not en titled to exercise any of
th e function s or auth orities reposed in th e District
In spector”
un der th e Road O rdin an ce O f 1 856. Y oungV. Mun ro .
Compen sa tion — To Prosecutor .~—See Commo
MISE.
Comp la in t — See INFORMATION.
D
COM ROMI'
SE. 26 CONSENT.
Comp r omise.
Person a l O ffen ce — Wh ere Offen ce is of a private or
person a l n ature n ot amoun t in g to felony an d n ot aggra
va ted , involvin g damage to th e in dividual for w h ich an
action w ould bemain tain able , it w ould n ot be unusual
for th e Ma gistra te to allo w th e complaint to be droppedon terms th a t compen sation be pa id to th e in jured party.
Door aj ,V . Keenoo .
A priva te in jurymay gen era lly be disch arged by th eagreemen t O f th e person In jured it is difieren t w ith an
ofien ce w h ich is con side red to be an in jury against th ecommunity _
a s w ell a s ag ain st a particular individual ;n o disch a rge or forgiven ess by th e individualclient in such a case . Bagot v. Gunga . (A case forneglecting to begin w orkWith out law ful excuse .)Licence Law — Tenderin g ofmoney to cover licence
,
after information laid , does n ot condon e Offen ce for n ottaking out litten ce. Math eson v. Straker .
Th e receivin g of an in stalmen t w ith in terest for licenceis n o condonation of Offence committed prior to date ofreceipt. Day v. Gon sa lves .
Where th e Commissary g ives permission to a person
to use a gun , th e party usmg th e gunmay still be con
victed of using th e gun w ith out a licence, as th e permission of th e Commissary cannot override th e la w w hichmakes it imperative to take out a. licence . H orton v.
Ch ester ; Tyrell V. Stuart .
Idemw hen a n otice is issued calling on person s to
take out licen ces up to a cer tain day on pain th at th ose
n eg lecting to provide themselves w ith a licen ce w ill be
prosecuted , and an un licen sed gun is used in th e in terim.Bolton v. Fern andes.
Computation of Time .-SEETIME— SUNDAY.
Con d on a tion .— SEE COMPROMISE.
Con sen t .
Evid en ce oth erw ise in admissible can not in criminal orsummary proceeding s be a dmitted by con sen t. Warren
v. Pereira .
CONSENT. 27 CONVICTION.
Th e presumption of con sen t fromsilence is not absolute . Warren v. Pereira .
In crimin al ch arges it is not competen t for a n accused
person to con sen t to anyth ing . Such con sen t does n ot
cure irregularities. Jaoko et a l v. Sarabjeth .
Con struction of Pen al O rdin ance — SEE CRIMINALMATTER.
of O rdin an ce — SEE O RD‘
INANCE.
Con tr act .— Breach of.
In ca ses aga in st a labourer evidencemust be given tosh ow th at Defendan t is a contract labourer. Prince et
a l v . Rickford .
Th ere can be n o conviction under a ch a rge for fraudan d deception Wh ilst cuttin g can es if th e fr aud a n d
deception took place a fter th e can es h ad been cut . I6.
Con tract is n ot illega l on th e g round th a t parties ag reed
th at th e w orkmust be fin ish ed in a cer tain time or n o
part th ereof w ould be paid for . Tra p v. G reen .
Breach of— by Servan t — See MASTERAND SERVANT
Conviction
Is th e completion of th e record a n d t h e Cour t of
Review is govern ed by it a nd n ot by th e ch a rge. Van
Brook v. King .
REQUISITES OF.
Need not state age of Defendan t, neith er
is an adult, &c. Gran t v . Josa .
Security— O n conviction , no imprisonmen t aw arded ,
th e Magistra te is to take secur ity in‘
caSe O f appeal‘
an d
not a deposit,
ofmoney for Defendan t to abide appea l .Collier v. Pullitlall .
Sign atw re.— Th e convictionmust purport to bear the
Magistrate’
s signature . Williams v . Lyn ch .
Al‘
tering .— Conviction may be a ltered by Mag istra te
during th e sitting of th e Court . Th e Session s h ave th e
pow er of altering a sen ten ce before adjournment, but th is
sh ould be done w ithmuch caution. Manson v. Gunga deen .
D.
CONVICTION. 28 REQUISITEs.
Inference.~— Must not be supported by inten dment.
Glasgow v. De Freitas.
Jur isdiction — Must sh ow th at th e offen ce w as committed w ith in th e local limits over w h ich th e jurisdictionexten ds, but th ere is n o specialmeth od of proof for
establish in g th is fact . Gran t v . Josa .
Specific.— Must be for th e Offen ce ch arged . Cumber
batch v. H in ds, cit . Ben v . Nich olson (Reg . v. VVhea tma/n.
Dougla s, 232; Reg . v . Smith 8 T.E.
Must contain ofience committed , verdict and pen alty,a lth ough th e O rdin an ce defin es th e pen al con sequences.
Cox v. Bascom(cit . Reg . v . Vigion t, 2 Ba rr 1 1 63 ; Reg.
v. H arris, 7 T.E. 238 ; Pa leyMust be for a specific pen alty. Gomas v. Backer .
Pa ley 227 et seq.For Gamin g — Must con tain a n averment th at Defend
ant is deemed a rogue an d a vagabond . Soyah v.
Moran cie.
Un der Vagran cy O rdinan ce itmust show under w h ath ead Defen dan t is convicted w h eth er a s an idle and disorderly person , &c. Turnkey v. Kin g (cit. Fletcher v.
Ca lthorp e, 14L. J.M. O .49 ; Reg. v . Johnson , 8 QB .
Wh ere th is is omitted an d n o specific Objection takenCourt w ill remit to Magistrate for n ew conviction .
Decision in formof English Act . Soyeh et a l v. Moras eis .
Under 20 of 1862 it is sufficien t for conviction to pur
port to be for an Offen ce committed con trary to O rdi
n ance 20 of 1 862 w h ich en acts (sec . 72) th at no summaryconviction under th e O rdin an ce sh all be quash ed forw an t of form. Evan s v. Y oung
-a-sam.Wh ere O rdinancemakes a particular class of persons
amenable to an offence such a s baker”, &c. , th e convic
tionmust sh ow on th e face of it th at Defendant belongs
to such class. De Govia v. Green slade .
Convictionmust be so framed th at it is capable in itsterms w ith out being construed bymean s of intrin sic
eviden ce of suppor ting th e plea of a n t. cone . in the event
of a secon d prosecution being brough t for same ofl'ence.
Th is is not accomplish ed w h ere th e statute un der w hich
th e conviction ismade createsmore offen ces th an one bysaying th e Defendan t w as convicted of committing or of
ConvICTION .30 FORMAL
Sen tence for brea ch of Crow n Lan ds O rdin an ce for
$48 a n d costs, an d if a gr an t-h older , to forfeit licence,
”
is bad for un certain ty . Gomes v. Backer ; idem, If con
viction states san d coa ls , &c .
”to be sold ,
’i h ' idem
, if
it con demn s Defen da n t to payA an d an oth er , Coombsv . Butler . Wh en bad for w an t of certain ty, case can be
remitted to Magistrate for forma l conviction . De Frietas
v . Siegert .
It is bad if it simply fin d s Defen dant guilty O f th e
Offen ce ch a rged an d con tain s n o adjudica tion of pun ishmen t . Cox v . Ba scom. It is n o an sw er to say th at th e
pun ishmen t is fixed by law , ih . ; (cit . R. v . Vip ont, 2Burr 1 1 63 ;R. v. H arris, 7 , T. R. ,
238 ; Pa ley,Wh ere it is bad for w an t of certa in ty, a ll doubts on
th e poin t can be removed by remitting th e case to theMagistrate for h imto d raw up a forma l con viction . De
Freitas v . Siegert . A con viction to pay to A and an
oth er ,”is bad for uncertain ty . Coombs v. Butler .
A conviction is in divisible , an d a fault in one part
vitiates th e w h ole . Aben dan on v . Sproston .
A conviction bad in part is fa ta l to th e w h ole convio
tion . Na scimen to v. An son .
A pen a l sen ten ce is so clearly indivisible th at it cannot
be good in part an d bad in par t, an d th e decisionmustbe removed a ltogeth er . Th us it becomes n ecessary for th e
Judge in Review to con sider th e facts of th e case in Orderto impose a n e w sen tence , alth ough un der ordinary cir
cumstan ces h e w ould n ot recon sider th equan tumO f pun ishmen t aw arded by th e Magistra te’
s decision . Rodneyv.
Sampson . Con tr a in De H a a rt v . H arcourt, w h ere convic
tion w as amen ded . Fur ther— See CONVICTION, AMENDMENT.Th e omission of amateria l avermen t w ill vitiate a
conviction n otw ith stan ding th e proviso th at no con
viction for any offen ce sh ould be set aside for w a nt of
formor th roug h amistake of any fact, circumstanceor oth ermatter , provided th ema terial facts allegedw ere proved .
” Turnkey v . King . Rodneyv. Sampson;(c it . R. v . Julces, 8, T. R.
FORMAL.
Magistra te not boun d by conviction a t Bar, a nd h emay
CONVICTION. 31 AMENDMENT.
file a n amen ded conviction before cer tiora ri, w h en Court ofReview w ill be boun d by th e forma l conviction . McGow anv . Davis ; (cit . Ch an ey v . Payn e, 1 , Q .B . , 722 ; Ch a r terv . Gra eme, 18, L .J . , MC 73 ; R. v . Ba cker
,1,East ,
Webster v. Birch — th emin ute of th e Mag istratemust con tain sta temen t O f conviction Hutson v . Roson .
Wh ere Mag istrate orders imprisonmen t ora lly, an d
forma l conviction sh ow s n o imprisonmen t, th e proper
sen tence is to be taken fromth e forma l con viction sen t
in to th e Court . McGow an v . Davis (cit . Jon es v.
Williams, 36, L .J . ,M .C.
,
Wh ere th e formal con viction is n ot sen t in , th e order
of th e Mag istrate as laid in th e proceeding s w ill be taken
a s conclusive . De Guara v . Watson .
Th e forma l con viction even if proper ly dra w n up can
n ot supply defects in th e ch arge an d evid en ce . Sew bodev. Muller .
Subsequen t proceeding s do n ot afiect conviction .
Jeffrey v . Burrow es.
AMENDMENT .
Th e Review Cour t h as n o pow er to a lter th e sen ten ce
of a Magistrate w h ere it tra n sg resses th e limits O f h isstatutory auth ority. Glasgow v . Bra ndon .
Wh ere con viction is w rong , Cour t of Revie w can alter
sen ten ce . Ford v . De Veuve .
Un der th e Customs O rdin an ce a conviction decreeing3mon th s ’ imprisonmen t in default of paymen t of th elin e
,
”may be amen ded by striking out th e 3mon th s ’Imprl sonmen t a s surplusage , an d th e Court w ill remit th eca se back to th e Magistrate for h imto d ra w up a proper
conviction . McGow an v . Davis cit . Cox v. Davis ;
Corr ea v. Cuckow .
Wh ere th e conviction orders 30 days’
imprisonmen tan d fin e O f $24a n d costs or 2mon th s’ h ard labour , th eCourt O f Review h as pow er to a lter th e same to on e for
$24an d costs. Rodn ey v. Sampson .
Wh er e conviction imposes a pen a lty an d costs above
th e amoun t fixed by law ,th e Courtmay amend . Ned v.
T ce.yWh ere conviction imposes a pen a lty less th an th e law
CONVICTION . 32 AMENDMENT.
a llow s, th e Magistra te exceeds h is auth ority.
an d th e
Cour t can not amen d th e conviction . D’
Na smmen to v.
An son .
Wh ere th ere is amere omission in th e draw ing up of
th e in strumen t w h olly irrespective O f th e truth andmerits of th ematter in question ,th e Court of Review
w il l order an amen dmen t . Ma th eson v. Gray (Cmerodv . Ch a dw ick, 1 6, M. db W . , p . 367 ; R. c. Inhabitan ts ofCh ili erscoton , 8, T. R.
, 1 78 ; R. v. Daman,2, B. Ald
378,h eld n ot in proof as h aving been decided before
previous act .)Conviction statin g damage, in jury an d spoil , may be
amen ded to eith er term. Joseph v. Ruck.
Under O rdin ance 5 of 1863, th e Review Court h aslarge pow ers of amen dmen t
,an d w h erever th ere is a
conviction w ell foun ded a s to th emerits an d a part O f thead judication is lega lly valid , somuch a s is valid sh ould
be sustained a lth ough joined w ith someth ing else w h ich
w as n ot va lid , an d provided injury or in justice is not
a ttendan t on or in duced by th e sepa ration . Luckie v.
An son . Th e Court w ill adopt itself either by amen dingor remitting to th e Magistrate w ith in struction w hen
th a t course ismore suitable , ih .
Wh ere conviction is bad in pa rt an d good in part, th e
pa r t va lid w ill be sustain ed , th e invalid part set aside,
e.g . , w h ere conviction is for a ssault an d bin ds th e Defen
dan t to keep th e peace, th e fine or imprisonment for th ea ssault w ill be valid a nd sustained , an d th e adjudicationto keep th e peace w ill be set aside . Cunn ingh amv.
Long .
Wh ere th e conviction is erroneous in part it is still
g ood if th e Magistrate decided righ tly in SO far as h e h ad
jurisdiction , yet decided on extran eousmatter beyondh is jurisd iction . Bracey v . McTurk. In th is case th e
Mag istra te t ried a claimofAppellan t un der Crow n Lan ds
Act, d ismissed th e same an d adjudged h imto a fine or
impr isonmen t , a n d forfeiture of h is w ood-cutting licence.
Wh ere th e Magistra te in ca se of plan tain stealingsen ten ces Defenda n t to imprisonment an d to a floggingw ith in th e time w ith in w h ich h e h as a righ t to appeal,th e Review Court h a s pow er to affirmdecision in regard
CONVICTION. 33
to th e imprisonment and set it aside w ith regard to th eflogg ing . Williams v. Primo .
Wh ere ch arge stated ofience to be under O rdinan ce14of 185 5 , a nd th e conviction sh ow ed O rd inance 25 of1 868, th eCourt h eld th at th e en actmen ts under 3 21 of
Review O rdinan ces w ere adapted from1 1 1 2 Vic. c.
43, s. 1 ; 12, 56 13 Vic .43, s. 7 ; 2 1 22 Vic. c .43, s. 6,an d did not w arrant amen dmen t of th e conviction nor a
remit to th e Mag istrate w h o is out of th e colony at th etime th ema tter ismen tion ed . Mann v. McTurk.
Amen dmen t of charge, by adding in case of gamblingat a game of chance,” allow able. Adams v. Clarke .
Court of Review cann ot decree amendment of a goodch arge of larceny w here Mag istrate convicts of embez z lemgn t, so as to correspond w ith eviden ce and conviction .
Jesse} v, Robb.
Conviction to pay a penalty for using h orse and n o t
taking out licence and to‘
pay h a lf amoun t of such licence,quash ed as regards payin g h a lf amount of the licence .
Ma tth eson v. Straker .
Where Magistrate imposes a less pen alty th an is
a llow ed by th e O rdin ance, th e conviction is’
bad a nd
can n ot be amended . D’
Nascimen to v. Anson .
Copy of Minutes— See EVIDENCE.
Wh en grow n on Crow n Lan ds, is not liable to seiz ure
by a Commissary of Taxation under 9 of 1873. Gon
salves v.
“
Harcour t .
Costs
n he aw arded under 19 of M56, Sec . 24on a ch arge
for gsing abusive w ords laid under 20 of 1856;Sec. 1 .
Ben jamin 17. De Freitas ; an d under name O rd in an ceona ph grge of sglling goods on Sun day. Jardine v . Bolton ; Da:Silva v. Gridin D
’Abreo v. Gridin Pereira v.
Bolton .
Un der. O rdinance 19 of 1856 the Mag istrate can a w a rd
cgstq in cases of summary conviction but can on lyE
COSTS. 34 CRIMINAL MATTER.
imprison for non -paymen t after d istress or failure to fin d
a sufficien t d istress. Rodn ey v . Sampson .
Costs sh ould n ot be a w a rded to th e agen t of th e prin
cipa l but to th e prin cipal . Williams v . Roberts .
No costs a w a r ded — Wh er e case is dismissed and th er ecord does n ot sh ow w h eth er for w an t of jur isdiction , orth at th e Mag istr ate d ecl in ed to adjudica te , fromth eomission tomake any order as to costs, th e Courtmustimply th at dismissal w a s for w an t of jurisdiction . Dawson v. Gon sa lves .
Ascer ta in ed costsmust be specified in th e conviction .
H ayw ood v . Y oung ; De Guara v. Watson ; Turnkey v.
Kin g ; (cit. R. v . Abra h amH a ll Comp ,60 R.v . Symonds,
1 East 1 89 ; S'ellw ood v. Moun t, 1 Ad . EL, N. S. p.
726) or decision w ill be reversed . Gomes v. Beth une ;de Guara v . Wa tson Da San tos et a l v. Exor . James.
Are recorerable'
in th e sameman ner as a penalty. Car
reiro v. Cuckow . O rd . 1 9 of 1856 Sec. 24cited forcon tra , h eld n ot applicable . (Regin a v . Bar ton , 13 Q.B. ,
Of reta in ers to Barrister n ot allow able in Magistrate’
s
Court. Salmon v. Blake .
Discretion of Court — Th e Review Court n ot bound toaw ard costs to Appellan t . Pistano v. Pompey.
Coun tin g H ouse — SEE Omen .
Cr imin a l: Ma tter .
WHAT Is.
Summa ry Process — Wh ere O rdinan ce enacts th at pro
ceeding is to be un der Summa ry Jurisdiction O rdinance1 9 of 1 856 th ema tter is a Crimina l on e . Cox v. Bascom.Wh ere a p en a lty is infl icted or w h ere th e accused besides
oth er forfeitures is immed iately or prospectively liable
to imprisonmen t w ith o r w ith out h ard labour , to fine or
both , it is a Crimin alma tter . Sw ain v. Pistano, S. C.
If th e pen a lty is on e w h ich ofmany affects th e Defen
dan t a t on ce by th e imprisonmen t of h is body in the
even t of a verdict of guilty so th a t h e is liable, if goods ormon ey are soug h t to be recovered bymeans of th e proceedings, it is a Criminal proceeding . Pistano v. Sw ain ,
'vAW L l u fl r
CRIMINAL MATTER. 35 WHAT Is NOT
(cit . Ca ttel v. Ireson , E. B . E. 97 (cited for Appellan t,h eld n ot applicable .) (R. v . Dixon
, 3 M. S. 1 1 ; R. V .
Ma rsh , 2 B . C. 7 1 7 R. V . Step h en s. 1 Q . B . 702 ; Ba rton
v.McQueen ,2MooreP. C. 1 9 ; R. V .Medley, 6 C. 86 P. 299 ;
R. v. Dea n ,1 2 M. W. 39 ; R. v . Han dley, 9 L . T. 1 27
R. v . H a lbr oo/c, 3 ‘Q . B. p . (Sup. Civil Court) .Brea ch es of th e Fisca l La w s a re Crimin almatters a nd
th ere can be equity. Williams v . Lyn ch .
A prosecution un der th e Crow n Lan ds O rdin an ce is aCrimin alma tter . Sw ain v . Pista no (cited for Appellan tto sh ow th at th e infl iction of a penalty does n ot con stitutea Crimin a lmatter ) . Aitch eson v . Everett 1 Cow p . 382 ;Attor n ey Genera l v. biddons, 1 C. J. 220.
Informa tion for Pen a lty und er 6 Cr. iv. o. 1 08. Pista nov . Sw a in ; (Pa rker v. Green , 31 L . J. M . C
:
Aleh ouse Keep er p ermitting bad ch aracters tomeet inh is h ouse again st tenor of l icen ce . Pistan o v. Sw a in (citedby th e judgmen t. Attorn ey Genera l V . Rad lofi
'. 1 0 Ex .
Selling Rumcon trary to O rd ina nce 25 of 1868, See. 8,is a Crimin a lma tter . Rodrigues v. Darrel l.
In afiilia tion cases — See POORLAW.
PROOF.
It is sufficien t for th e prosecution to prove somuch of th ech arge a s con stitutes an offen ce punish able by la w . Eva n sv. Y oun g
-a-Sam(cit . Rea . v . H ollinyburg ,4B. C.
In Revenue cases Prosecutor to be bound to submitproof. D
’
O liveira V . Da rr ell .
A pen al la w must n ot be strain ed beyond its plain
terms an dmea ning , a nd w h ere thismean ing is doubtfulitmust be con struedmore n arrow ly t h anmore w id ely.
Fern an des v. Greenslade .
Wh ere th e O rdinance decla res a th ing to be un la w ful
if don e w ith out la w ful excuse th e c ircumstan cesmust bespecifica llymentioned in th e con viction , as it is the
a bsen ce of such la w ful excuse w h ich impar ts to th e act a
crimin al ch aracter . Bacch us V . Warren (cit. R. V. Gordon
4Bur rWHAT IS NOT.
A bond fide belief deprives th e act in question of a
E
CRIMINAT.MATTER. 36 CROWNLANbs.
cr in’
iinal ch aracter a lth ough such act p er so w asmadereferen ce toth e intent . Rodn eyv.
Illega l rmxp '
oundi/ng is n ot a Criminalmatter . Bl'
zifn‘
kV. hl il lligaiii.Tr espa ss o n
’
Jr ow n la n d‘
is not a Criminal or pén '
alma tter . De Freitas v . Wig h t .
Act of Defen dant in Cr imin al ina tter .— See WI’l‘NESS.
See Poun d .
Cross Ch a rges
Arising out cy‘
the same set of —Eachmustbe fully h eard In thema nn er prescribed by la w s butd ecisionmay be reserved in the one until th e other ish ea rd . Binn s V . Hollingsw orth .
Crow n La n ds.
CHARGE
For breach sh ould contain a d escription of thelaiid .
Pista n o V . Sw ain .
If Defendan t goes to trial w ith out applying for a post
pon emen t h e is deemed to h ave w aived objection th ereto.
lb.
WHAT NOTLIABLE TO SEIZURE.
orn g row n on Crow n Lan ds not liable to_
seiz ure byCommissary of Taxation . Gonsa lves v. H arcourt.
Goons LIABLE TO SEIZURE.
Wh ere Gran tee dea ls With seller of shingles _
h e sh ouldmake en quiry a nd obtain_
c_
lear an d reliable in formationa s to th e goods h e pu l ch ases . It h s n eglects th e dutya n d purch a ses w ith out a sking questions, h e is playingin to th e h andsO f th ose w h o on a larger or _
smtil} er scaleas th e casemay be, a re plun derers of th e forests of thecolony , and he h as bn ly h imself to th ank if even tp allyth e t ra n ~action tur n s to h is ow n loss. Sw ain V . Lopes.
Sh ing les cut on Cro w n Lan ds bymistake gives thet
i
respa sser po rig ht to in sist on a surrender of thembecause h e niade amistake . De Freitas v. Wight.
CRQWN LANDS. 38 SUB-LETTING.
O n a claimfor timber illegally seiz ed , th e Magistrate
w h o fin d s th e timber to h ave been leg a lly seiz ed ca nn ot
in th e same proceedin g s impose a fin e , costs an d forfeitureof claiman t ’ s Licen ce as a w ood cutter . Bracey v.
McTurk .
In ca ses of seiz ure th e Review Cour t can fin d forPursuer for par t of plain t an d for Respon den t for par t.Fr a n cis v . Wig h t .
Th e property of th e Crow n w ould n ot be divested byn on claimw ith in th e per iod a llow ed , an d by the O rdin an ce 9 of 1 873, S. 35 th e proof of th e illega lity of th eseiz ure is placed on th e claiman t . Bracey v. McTurk.
PROCEEDING FORPOSSESSION .
Wh ere lan ds are in th e possession of a private par ty w ho
got th emfromon e w ho h ad possession since 1834, th e
Crow n in 1863 in order to get possession sh ould take
proper steps by process if n eed be before th e SupremeCivil Court. Gomes v. Backer .
TRESPASS.
Trespa ss on Crow n Lan d n ot a crimin al or pen almatter .
De Freitas v. Wigh t .
PRESCRIPTION — sea Prescrip tion
SUB-LETTING .
Sub-letting Licen ce is n o ofien ce except under certain
circumstan ces. Duggin v. Men donga . Such circumsta n cesmust be nega tived in th e conviction , ib. cit.
(F letch er v. C'a lth orpe, 6 Q . B Pa ley 1 89 ; R. v. Gordon,4Bw rr 2279 ; R. v . H a z ell. 1 3 EastH older of Gra n t can n ot sub-let or sub-divide . A
don a tion of timber g row ing on Crow n Lands w ithout
permission of th e Govern or is a sub-letting , an d timber cuton such lan d s is liable to seiz ure . King v. Br ittlebank.
H older of Crow n L an d s a llow ing a person to cut w oodor burn ch arcoa l on h is lan ds for a por tion of th e proceed s does n ot by such a ct sub-let th e lan ds or anypor tion th ereof. D
’
O liveira v. Backer .
CROWN LANDS. 39 DEFECT.
Ach arge for sub-lettin g Gran t Should state th at th e
Defen dan t sub-letted or sub-divided th e in terest in a
w ood-cutting licen ce”
. Ib.
Customs .
Ch a rge for breach of Customs lawmust be in th e n amean d Sign ed by th e Comptroller or Sub-Comptroller of
Customs . Hoh enkirk v . Royen .
Proof; onus — All th eProsecutor h a s to do in Customscases is to Sh ow th at th e Defenda n t failed to do w h at th e
la w required and th a t h is failure w as w ilful . McGow an
v. Davis .
Da te .
Under Larceny O rdin an ce da te of la rcen y n eed n ot‘
be
proved . Ch ristoph er v . McNich ol l .
Ch arging Defen d an t w ith illegally cutting w ood duringor about th emonth of April 1882
”on Crow n lan d s is
sufficien t if th e actual date of th e offen ce h ad been proved
to h ave been w ith in th e time limited by th e O rdin an ce .
Dow v . Ch a lmers .
Decision of Cour t .
Wh ere th er e is a decision of a Court of con curren t
jurisdiction th e oth er Cour ts w ill adopt th a t a s th e ba sis
of th eir decision , provided it can be appea led from.Anga lly v. Agard ; (cit . Ja ckson v. Wooley, 8 E. B.
778,Magistrates are to con formto th e d ecision s of th e
Review Court w h ich a re bin ding on th emun til a lteredby due course of la w . 1 b.
Decision of Magistr atemust be defin ite in Revenuema tters ; h emust decide on e w ay or th e oth er . Darrell
v . Rod rigues .
Defen d a n t — See APPEARANCE.
Age of— See AGE.
Examin ation of— SeeWITNESS.
Defect in Conviction .
— See CONVICTION .
of Duplicity See DUPLIClTY .
in In forma tion — See INFORMATION .
WSERTIO ff. 40 DISORDER“ Germain.
Deser tion Qi Immigr an t— see IMMIGRANT.
ofWife— See POOR LAW.
Dies Non — See H OLIDAY.
Dir ection s .
Review Court has n o jurisdiction to give directions.
0 0min» Vs Green.
Discr etion of iMagistr ate In believing evidence .
see MAGISTRATE— JURY.
Discretionary Pow er .
Wh en exercised by th e Magistra te under circumstancesw h ich bring it w ith in h is operation , not in terfered w ith .
Pow ers v. Ruck.
Wh ere Magistrate en tertain s a request for a summonsan d refuses to issue same in th e due exercise of a
discretionary pow er vested in h imby law , it is not'
In
th e province of th e Court to interfere . Wrigh t v . Ga rnett.
Th e Magistrate h as n o d iscretion In refusing to issue a
summon s ib. un less on some grounds duly ascer tamedw h ich th e law recogniz es a s suflicien t . Torrop v. Jard1ne
Th e Judges are pot authqrised to interfere w ith th e
discretion en trusted to a Magistrate 1n fixing th e amoun tof fin e . Surupjeet v. Lang Clouston v. Fra ser .
O f Magistrate as to believing evidence.— See MAGIS
TRATE— JURY .
Discretion as to Fin e.— See EXCESSIVE FINE
IMPRISONMENT .
Dismissal .-See CERTIFICATE ;AUTRE rors ACQUIT.
DIsord er ly assemblea es in Retail Spir it Shep.
O rd. 25 868,
To ren der Defen dan t liable itmust be sh ow n th at h e
a llow ed th ese assemblies in an ordinary or direct case.
Pequeno v. Weddell
Disor d er ly Con duct
Not synonympus Wl th ViO Ien t con duct McKenna
v. Binns.
DISORDERLY CONDUCT. DUPLICIT'
Y .
O n a public street— Con duct w h ich in terferes w ith th e
free an d peaceable use of th e street eith er a s a th oroughfa re or a s a place w h ere person s reside an d carry on
busin ess is disorderly.
It is n o excuse for Defen d an t to say h e h ad a righ t touse th e street in con n ection w ith th e public .
Sh outing an d th row ing somersaults on th e street is adisorderly con duct . Ib.
Disputed Title .—Assau1t fromSee ASSAULT.
See JURISDICTION .
Distress — See HARD LABOUR.
Dog .
O w nersh ip — Th e keeping of a dog w ith out a licence isan offen ce, an d th e question of ow n ersh ip can not en ter onth e trial . Gon salves v. Cuckow . Furth er— See LICENCE.
Keep ingmor e th an one - See AUTREFOISACQUIT.
Doubt .
Review Courtmust givema tter of doubt in favour of
Defen dan t in th e Cour t below . Percival v. Tebbutts .
Dr ive 0 fl‘
.-See WORDS.
Drug s .
Licen ce to sell drugs does not cover sale of goods
oth er th an drugs . Pon tifex v . Sw ain .
Castor O il is a drug . Teixeira v. Sw ain .
Dup licity .
Wh ere ch arge is duplex Defendan t or th e Magistratesh ould call on Prosecutor to elect w h ich h e in ten ds to
proceed w ith . Ch ristoph er v. McNich oll ; D’Abreu v.
CHARGES BAD FORDUPLICITY.
Ch arge for keeping an d using for trade or h ire is
bad for duplicity, but itmay be amended . Gonsalves v.
An son ; cit . Mayers v. An derson , D’Abreu v. Francis.
DUPLICI'I‘Y . 42 DUPLICITY.
Cha rge in th e disjun ctive, such as did un la wfully sellor offer for sa le barter or exch ange or oth er w 1se d is
pose of is bad for duplicity. Gon salves v. Joseph (c1t.Newman v . Bendysche, 1 0 A. E. 1 1 ) th e fact th at con
viction is for disposing”
alon e does n ot ren der it
good . 1b.
Ch a rgefor breach of the p ea ce for bemg d isordan Open yard and a nuisan ce to th e poh ce
”. Ben v.
Mich elson .
Ch arge for heaping tw o dogs w ithout a licen ce. Henryv. Solomon .
Ch a rge for refusing to a dmit a policeman in to a certain
shop a n d in to an d upon th e premises belonging th ereto.
”
D’Abreu v. Fran cis (cit . I . A. G. rep. Ch itto v. Kelly;I . A. G . rep. Rugh onauth v. Clark.)Cha rge for brea ch of contract by committing frauda nd decep tion . Price v. Rickford , cit. Gon salves v.
Jose h .
C l a rgefor holding a public enter ta inment for moneyor rew a rd .
”Gibbon s v . Straker .
Ch a rgefor having sold or sufi'
ered to be sold Martin v. Birch .
Ch a rge in the a ltern a tive. Martin v. Birch ; Valladares
v. Beth un e .
CHARGESNOTRAD FOR’
DUPLICI'rY .
Ch a rgefor receiving and h arbourin g immigran t, har
bourin g being h eld to in clude “receiving
”Cox v.
Bascom(cit . R. v. Bow en , 1 Den 0 . C. 21 ; R. v. Gid
dens, 1 C. 85 M. 6341 ;R. v . Scott, 33 L. J.M. C. N. S.
Ch a rgefbr“ destroying defa cing and injuring a r egister.
”
Cox v. Bascom(cit. Reg. _v. Bow en, 1 Den . C. C.
Cha rge for assaulting A. g B. a nd stea ling fromAIb (cit . Reg . v . Giddens et a l, 1 C. StM. 634Reg. v.Scott,33 L . J . N . s. M.
Ch a rge for la rceny a n d a ssault arising out of larceny.
Ba scomv. Stover . Th e Magistrate took eviden ce onlyof th e larceny an d adjudica ted as for larceny ; on appeal
h eld th a t th e ch argemust be looked a t as one for larceny.
Ch arge for being foun d in a shop for some un lawful
purpose a nd not being a ble to give a satisfactory account.
DUPLICITY. 43 EVIDENCE.
Popw ell v. Barn es, th e w ords not being th e. beingtrea ted as surplusage .
Ch a rge for dama ge injury a nd spoil. Joseph'
v . Ruck.
Ch a rge for h a rbor ing tw o immigra nts on boa rd a vessel .Webster v . Ruck.
Ch a rge for assault a nd bea t. Evan s v. Y ong-a-Sam
(cit . Reg . v. Scott, 33 L . J. N . S.M. C. as th eremay
be an a ssault w ithout beatin g , an d a ba ttery w ith out a n
assault, an d if Complaina nt failed to prove battery‘
it
w ould not excuse Defen dan t far somuch of th e complain ta s ch arged a n assault . Ib. cit . Rec . v . Hollingburg,4B .
Embez z lemen t .-See MASTERAND SERVANT
a nd LARCENY.
Esta te immig ran t. -.See IMMIGRANT.
Cart used by Estate - See CARRIAGE.
Evid en ce .
Itmust be taken in a ll proceedings before conviction ,Wh ere Defen dan t does n ot plead guilty. Reiz v. Cucko w .
IMMIGRANT.
Th e on ly eviden ce th at an Immig ran t w a s absen t fromth e Estate w h en h e depa rts w ithout leave of th eMa nager ,&c is a duly certified extra ct froma reg ister kept byth e I . A. G . in terms of Sec . 1 64, O rd . 7 of 1 873.
Legga tt v . Matabudul con tra James v . Lilmon ie.
Register of Immigran ts kept on an Esta te is evidence .
Bera ngea v. Ba scom; Seew ootulah v . Men z ies.
Th e in den ture listmade un der Sec .40 of Immig ra tionO rdin an ce 1 873 is n ot in th e n a ture
“
of secon d a ryeviden ce . It is or igin a l evidence of th e in den ture an d
w h en coupled w ith th e iden tifica tion by th e overseer
of th e immig ran t proceeded against,‘it is sufficien t
Kollich urrun v . King .
I llega l— Evidence taken aga in st a Defenda nt w h o is
sen t fromon e county to an oth er in order th at such
eviden cemay be laid before anoth er Magistrate a s to
sta tementsmade by h imcan n ot be admitted in th e
proceedings . Williams v. Lynch .
EVIDENCE. 44 EVIDENCE.
Eviden ce to be in w riting— Th e Court cann ot in ten d
th atmatters essen tial to th e con struction of a n offence
w ere proved w h ere it is n ot sh ow n by th e Magistrate’
s
n otes . Capel lo V . Greaves ; De Jesus et a i v . King .
Production — Th ere is n o rule th atmakes it imperative to produce th e documen ts th atmay be capable of
provin g a par ticular fact if it can be proved a liunde.
James v . Lilmon ie .
Eviden ce p rima fa cie stan ds good till an sw ered , andif n ot an sw ered , it th ereby becomes con clusive for th e
purpose of th e trial in w h ich it is adduced . Dos RamosV. Fran cis .
O F MAGISTRATE’SMINUTES.
A copy of th e Magistrate’
sminutes of eviden ce in a
summary prosecution is competen tly used in th e ReviewCour t for purposes of review (See . 20, 5 of 1868) butsuchminutes are n ot th erebymade eviden ce eith er of
fact or of statemen ts eith er gen era lly or for th e purposes
of a noth er summary prosecution before an oth er Magistra te, n or ar e th ey eviden ce by an y oth er en actmen t orby any general prin ciple of law . Warren v. Pereira .
EVIDENCE BY CONSENT .
Wh ere eviden ce is oth er w ise in admissible It cann ot be
admitted by con sen t on a crimina l proceeding , (or in a
case un der th e Sun day Trading O rdin ance) . Warren V.
Pereira ; Jacko cl a t V . Sarabyeth .
Th e presumption of con sen t is not to be taken as
absolute fromsilen ce of th e opposite par ty. Ib.
O f Defen dant— See WITNESS.
O f h usban d of Defen dan t— See WITNESS.
O f Documen ts— See SPECIAL HEADS.
O N DISTINCT CHARGES.
Must be taken on each ch arg e even if th ey be against th esame Defen dan t for simila r offen ces. It is irregul ar totake th e eviden ce g iven on on e ch arg e a s taken on th e
oth er . De Cambra V. Straker .
EVIDENCE. 46 EVIDENCE.
ILLEGAL EVIDENCE
Wh en admitted itmust be taken th at th e Magistratew a s influen ced by such eviden ce. David V. H osannah .
Idem.if it h a s any conn ection w ith th e subjectmatter , h owever slig h t or un importan t . Fern andes V. Green slade.
If n ot acted upon or received , someth ing sh oul d appearon th e r ecord to Sh ow th e fact . Fern an des v. Green slade,To allow a prosecutor
’
s defective evidence to be ekedout by w h at Defendan tmay say in defen ce is con trary toth e practice of th e Crimin al law . Goolamally V. Dornford .
UNSWORN EVIDENCE
O f lad under 14on th e ground th at h e did not appearto compreh end th e n ature of an oath is illega l, a s a
boy”p er se is n ot one of th e class of person s w h ose
un sw orn statemen tmay be received in evidence . PistanoV. Pompey.
LICENCE LAW.
Eviden ce of Licence.— It is n ot necessary to Sh ow
Defendan t is not h older of a licence to sell rumw ith outlicen ce, as it lays on Defendan t to prove h is licen ce.
Porter v. Bur row es.
Magistrate not justified in receiving as evidence con
tents of a licen ce, tun less licen ce be produced or n otice
given to produce. Burro w es V. Grabes. If n otice is
g iven to produce and it is not produced eviden cemayth en be given . De Freitas V. Elliott ; D
’
O liveira V.
Darrell. Contra , in Sunday trading cases w h ere no
licence is required to be produced . King V. Games.Th e production of th e licen ce is eu
'
admissi_
on byDefendan t th at h e is th e personmentioned in th e licence.Quin ta V . Sw ain .
An extract certified by th e Ch ief Commissary or underh an d of th e Ch ief Commissary frombooks of his depmen t of th e en try recording th e issue of a licence (5 of1 885) is sufficien t to prove licence, if sw orn to be in the
formrequired by See . 5 . Martin s v. Francis.
Evidence th at prosecutor visited th e sh op on lot 107,Bod rda, w h ich is licenced to Dias and San tos, I don
’t
47 EVIDENCE.
know th e Defendan t person ally, I did not see th e
Defen dan t in th e Sh op is n ot evidence of th e l icen ce .
Sa ntos V. An son .
Magistra te h as n o righ t to dismiss a case for carryin ga gun w ith out a licen ce w ith out h earing prosecutor
’
s
evid en ce, n otw ith stan ding Defendan t produces a licen cebearing date th e same day a s th e alleged
'
carrying of th e
gun . Burrow es V. D’Abreo .
To prove by s econ dary eviden ce , i.e. , th e admission of
Defen dan t w h o h ad n otice to produce h is licen ce, but did
n ot, th at sh e is th e h older of th e licence and forgot to
bring it to Cour t, is illeg al . De Freitas V . Elliott .
Before Defen dan t can be called on to produce h is
licence itmust be proved by p rimd fa cie evidence th ata retail spirit sh 0p licen ce h ad been issued to h iman dth at a n otice to produce th e licence h ad been served on
h im, De Freitas V. Elliott ; but under th e Sun dayTrading O rdinan ce it is immaterial w h eth er th e Sh op inw h ich goods w ere exposed for sale w as or w a s n ot
licenced . King V. Gomes (Ca tis gui tamV. Win ter , 3T. R. 306) explain ing D
’O liveira v. Darrell .
List of licen ces un der 25 of 1 869, S. 44, n ot best
eviden ce. an d under S. 8 a nd 71 . th e onus to prove
excepted right to sell Spirits in a retail Spirit sh 0p for
w h ich a licence h ad been obtained rests on Defen dan t
w h ose duty it is to produce such licence if existed .
Mingo v. Cuckow ; Da Silva V. Cuckow .
Certificate of th e Receiver General th at A w h o w as
th e h older of an 1 1 th class reta il spirit Sh op licen ce on 30th
Jun e paid h is in stalmen t for th emon th of Jun e on th e
23rd July is not eviden ce in a case ag ainst th e h older
of a Spirit licen ce for h avin g sold rumin Jun e w ith out
h aving paid h is licen ce. H orton V. Straker. O rdin ance
26 of 1 855 , S. 189.
Defen dan t in a crimin a l ch argemay be c a lled on to
produce a documen t in h is possession , and ifth e documen tis n ot produced itmay beproved by secon dary eviden ce.
De Freitas V. Elliott ; D’
O liveira v. Darrel].
PROOF O N CASE.
Not on lymust th e licen ce be produced , but itmust be
EVIDENCE. 48 EXCESSIVEFINE.
sh ew n th at th e“
personmen tioned in ch arge is th e samepersonmen tion ed in th e licen ce Dias v.Anson .
In proceedings to recover a pen alty w h ere it is allegedag ain st th e party proceeded again st, th at h e is licen ced,it is usua l to give n otice to produce th e licence. Gomesv . Bur row es (ca tis qui tamV . Winter 3 T. R.
’
Wh en th e existence of a documen t is in question,
n oticemay n ot be n ecessary, but if th e con tents aremateria l such notice is r equired . Ib. (cit.Reg.V
. ElémthyL . R. 1 C. C. R. Gon sa lves v. Burrow es .
Evid en ce th at rumw as sold in th e Black Lion isn ot sufficien t. Th e Black Lionmust be conn ected w ithth e Defen dan t
’s retail Spirit Sh op, Defen dan tmust be
con n ected w ith th e sh op in w h ich th e rumw as sold orw ith th e rumsold as th e ow n er or seller of it, by h imselfor th ose under h is control . Correia v. Breen Santosv. An son . It sh ould be proved th at the pa rtymen tionedin th e licen ce is th e Defen dan t . Santos V. An son .
Amere scin tilla of eviden ce sh ould not be left to thejury. Spencer v. Maclaine (cit. Man-b J. in Feuell v. Parr,1 3 C. B. 91 5 ;Ryder V . Wombell,4L . R. Ex. 32 ; Black
burn J. in R. V. Smith ; Leigh v. Cave, C. C.
Eviden ce of h usban d of Defendant on ch arge un der
Excise law not admissible . Covia V. King .
Belief of Magistrate in re— See MAGISTRATE (JURY).
Excess O f Jur isd iction . See CONVICTION(AMENDMENT.)un der Sunday Trading O rdinance
See CONVICTION and S. T. O RD.
Excessive Fine.
Th e fin e appears a h eavy on e but th e amoun t w as inth e d iscretion of th e Magistrate w ith w hich thfe"Courtdoes n ot in terfere . Hemay h ave been fgpidbd byh isknow ledge of th e facts s w orn to by th e Commiqsfi'
y th at
Defen dan t’
s sh op is w ith in 1 0 roods of a retail SpiritSh op . Cadell v. Burrow es.
I sh all be glad to seemor e d iscretion applied by th eMag istra tes in th e imposition offines under th e O rdinance,
EXCESSIVEFINE. 49 FEMME COVERT .
w h ich th ough auth oriz es large amounts as th emaximumfin es sh ould be administered w ithmoderation .
” Madeno
v. Darrell .
If fin e is w ith in th e competen ce of th e Magistra te th e
Cour t of Review w ill n ot in terfere on th e g round that
fin e w as excessive un der th e cir cumstances. Pereira v.
Beth un e .
PUNISHMENTO f In former , &e.
-S'
ee ABETTOR.
Wh ere Defen dant is ordered on a ch arge. of using a
pony for trade to pay a fin e of $4, costs 72 cents, to takea licence $8, th e w h ole to be recovered by distress or 14days un der 8 of 1 880, S. 3 th e tw o sums are to be. d eemedas a pen a lty of $1 2, and imprisonmen t of amonth is n otexcessive , as th e pena lty bein g over $10 th e impr isonment could be tw omon th s. Ch ow drie V. Layton .
Excuse fromW ork .— See IMMIGRANT.
Exposin g Good s for Sale.
Goods in a glass case in a sh op is an exposure for
for sale . Burrow es v. Ferreira .
By H uckster— See H UCKSTER.
O n Sun day— See SUNDAY TRADING O RDINANCE.
Fa ct .
Applying law to— See MAGISTRATE (JCRY).Felon iously .
Wh ere offence is a felony th e w ord felon iouslymustbe used in th e ch arge. Jodh an V. Mearns .
An act done felon iously is don e w ith n o colour of
r igh t to excuse th e act. D’Abrio V. H aw ker .
Leavin g out felon iously in ch arge— See LARCENY .
Femme Covert.A.married w omanmay be convicted under a statute
relating to th e Excise or Revenue for an offence committed by h er w ith out th e actual or implied coercion of
h er h usban d , an d it is n ot n ecessary th at th e h usband
sh ould be join ed in th e conviction . Govia V. King(cit. Rea: V. Crofts,
‘
2 Strange 1 1 20. PaleyG
FIAT,ArreaNEY GENERAL. 50 FIAT,ATToRN-ExGENERAL.
Fiat ofAttorn ey Gen era l .
Must be obtained before th e proceedin gs are begun byth e Magistrate ; De Vieveiros v . Fauset, Tan-lo-Chin v.
Burrow es, cit . De Cross v. Cuckow , Ra abon e v . Green slade ; even w h ere all th at w a s don e on t e first day w as toba il Defen dan t . Teixeira v . An son , cit . Quinta v.
Sw ain . Th e obtain in of th e fiat afterw ards an d beforeevid en ce is actually ta en does n ot cure th e defect, ib.
May be put on th e face of th e ch ar ge. Quinta v. Sw ain .
Altering ch ar a fter fiat ofAttorney General, annulsproceedings eepaul v. Cruicksh ank.
Goods w ere seiz ed ni der O rd . 25 of 1868 and 3 of1 869 on 1 8 O ct . Th e ch arge w a smade out in duplicatean d on e of th emfiled w ith th e Magistrate w h o issued th esummon s. After th e ch arge w a s filed th e AttorneyGeneral placed fiat 26 O ct . Case h eard 1 3 Nov. and onthat day th e secon d information (duplicate) w ith th e fiatw as produced and objected to on th e ruling of Quinta v.
Sw ain . Th e objection w as uph eld and case dismissed .
O n 29 Nov. a second summon s w a s issued on th e samein formation w ith th e fiat produced on first trial. Held
th at th e action w as n ot brough t w ith in 30 days after
seiz ure (25 of 1868 see. 68) an d th at th e duplicate information w as n ot a con tinua tion of th e proceedin gs first
taken . Li-a-Kin v. Dornford .
Necessary on ch arge for selling w ine in a licensed w ine
andmalt premises, said w ine h aving been drunk on th e
premises. Santos v. Layton .
If issued against D. an individual as carrying on
busin ess w ith anoth er un der a n ame, style or firm,” th eproceedingmust be entered in th e record book under
th e same rubric, and conviction follow in terms. Acon
viction a inst th e firmof D and A” is bad . De
Jesus et a v. King .
Wh ere fiat is placed on a ch arge resembling th e language of sec 1 8 of 14of 1 855 for selling rumby w h olesalean d th e Magistrate in reply to ,
Counsel said it w as under
14of 1855 , a conviction sh ow in g th at th e Magistrateadjudicated under 25 of 1868 is bad . Mann v. McTurk.
Wh ere fla t is placed on a ch arge against“Midco” a
FIAT,ATTORNEY GENERAL . 51 GAMLNG.
male a n d Midco turn s out to be a female, th at par ticularch argemust fa ll to th e g roun d . Boodh oo v. G reen slade.
Proof — Fiatmust be proved in th e legal w ay as th eO rdi n ance does not dispen se w ith proof of th e signature
of th e Attorn ey Gen eral . De Cross v. Cuckow ; Tan-IiCh i n v . Burrow es ; Gomes v. H arcourt . Eviden ce . I
h ave th e auth ority of th e Attorn ey Gen era l,”
sufficien t .
D’Aguia r v . Darrell .Magistr atemay recall w itn ess after prosecution closed
to prove fiat ; Mohun v. Turn er ; even after Defendan t
objects th at it h ad n ot been proved . Moh un v . Tur ner .
Furth er , see WITNESS— Reca ll of.
Fin e , excessive— See Excassrvn FINE.
Imprisonmen t in lieu of—~See HARD LA'BOB.
Fish Selling in cart — SeeCARRIAGE.
F orms .
Are to be con sideredmerely as guides, an d h ave no
over-rulin g auth ority aga in st th e positive en actmen ts of
th e O rdin an ce . Simpson v. Den ieunkerk.
DEFECT IN -See AMENDMENT.
G amin g .
A conviction for g amblin g in a h ouse kept for th e
purpose of common or promiscuous gaming w ith d ice”
amen ded by in sertion of th e w ords “at a game of
ch an ce . Adams v. Clarke.
Un der 21 of 1 856 Sec . 2 sub S. 3, th e ofl'
ence o f
gaming is complete so long as th e parties ,play for stakes;
w h eth er th e stakes be la rge or small is immaterial .Ramas Kh an v. Morris.
Wh ere a person is presen t accidentally in a house in
w h ich un law ful gaming is carried on , such presence is not
evidence of aiding an d abetting ; w h ere such presen ce is
p rima fa cie n ot accidental it is evidence, but n omoreth an eviden ce for th e jury
’. Ramas Khan v. Morris.
Pieces of brass used for gaming come un der th e h eadof “
oth er instrumen ts 21 of 1 856. Toyah at at v.
c
GAMING. 52
Maraucie (cited for Appellan t, h eld not applicable,Colbomo v. Stockda le, 1 StrangeAh ouse w h en kept for th e purpose of common gaming
is a “place
”under 21 of 1 856. Ib.
Conviction f or ,must con tain an avermen t th at Defendant is deemed a rogue an d a vagabon d. Toyah v.Morencis.
In Reta il Spirit Shop — If proved , it is not n ecessaryto prove th at th e ow n er of sh op h ad conn ivan ce of such
gaming . Gomes v. Sw ain . Idem, n ot n ecessary to provekn ow ledge of servan t in ch arge o f sh op, but th eremust besome circumstan ces fromw h ich itmay be inferred th atth e h older of th e licen ce or h is servan ts h ad connivanceof w h at w a s going on , such as a ctual know ledge or constructive kn ow ledge . Gomes v. Sw ain (cit. Bosleg/v. Davis,L .R. 1 Q . B . p. 85 ;Redga tev. H ayn es, L .R. 1 Q . B. p.
Th e h older of th e licence for a retail spirit shop is
liable for connivance of sh opmen w h en gambling takesplace in h is sh op. Gomes v. Sw ain . If ow ner could not
of h imself preven t disorderly con duct h e is n ot liable.
Rogers v. Pequeno.
Goats.— Impoun ding— See POUND.
Gold Min in g .
Applications unopposed by G overnmen t Lan d Departmen t remitted toDepartmen t . Sh ervington v.Abrah ams.Where th ere is satisfactory proof of a previous la ul
occupation of th e locus in gun anoth er person could not
locate a placer claimon th e same spot . Demerara RiverCo. v. Ch arles et a l. (Tw o cases) .Circumstances in w h ich O pposer h eld to h ave no inter
est. Nurse v. Garraw ay.
An entry of opposition under th e49th regulation of4of 1 887may be filed by a duly authorised agen t, t he
Crow n Surveyor satisfying h imself as to th e person so
filin g being th e agen t . McKinnon v.-Stoby.
Dismissa l on papers before th eCourt. Coronelv.:Brow n .
Wh ere th e party cla iming h as not th e approval Of 'the
Crow n Lands Departmen t th e Review Court w ill remitto th a t Departmen t, th ere being n o preferent righ t in
th e claiman t. Abrah ams v. Sh ervington .
HARD LAROUR. 54 HARD LAROUR.
‘
n o provision for imprisonmen t in default of payment, th eMagistratemay un der th e Small Pen alties O rdinan ce of1 868 order imprisonmen t w ith h ard labour . Davidv . Jackman .
Un der “
20 of 1 856 imprisonmen t can be aw arded forfirst ofien ce w ith out option of fin e . Y oung v. Maule .
Th e Magistratemay order a fin e, and in default of paymen t imprisonmen t un der 1 9 of 1 856. Math eison v. Gray.
Wh en sen ten ce sh ould h ave been simple imprisonmen t,an d h ard labour w as aw arded un der Small Pen alties O rdin an ce, it w as h eld th at no in jury h ad resulted , as th esen ten ce h ad n ot yet been executed
”an d th e conviction
w as remitted back to th eMagistrate in order th at th e errormay be rectified . Doraj v. Keenoo .
Under 20 of 1 856, Sec . 2 a convictionmakes Defenda n t liable to imprisonmen t w ith or w ithout h ard labourn ot exceeding 30 days or to a pen alty not exceeding
~$24,or to such penalty in addition to such imprisonment.Under 1 9 of 1 856, See . 33
, for w h ich 1 5 of 1 869, See.
2 is substituted , th e pen alty is to be levied by distress
an d in defa ult of distress by imprisonmen t &c . Held .
Th e Small Pen alties O rdin an ce does not affect th epow erof imposin g h ard labour in addition to imprisonment incases w h ere h ard labourmigh t on n on-payment of thepen alty h ave been imposed . H ard labourmigh t h avebeen imposed un der 1 9 of 1 856, Sec 33 and n ow under
1 5 of 1869. Portsmouth v. Gr een .
In cases for not taking out licences th e Magistrate
can order an alternative adjudication of imrisonmentmth e even t of th e fine an d th e sumdue for t e licence not
being paid . Martin s v. Burrow es, cit. 3 of 1868S. 34but in cases under th e Licence law ,
distressmust be firstissued . H oare v.
'
Duggin An tonio v. King .
Aconviction“ to pay a sumof $20, and If th e said sum
be not paid w h en due, or if th ere are not sufficient
goods or ch attels to levy on , th e Defen dan t to be“ imprison ed for a furth er termof tw o calen dar.
month sis bad , David v. H osan nah , a s th e order for imprisonmen t for w an t of g oods to distrain is on ly to be gran tedafter formal return to th at efiect. Josiah v. Gray.
O rdinance 1 9 of 1 856 .on ly auth orises : 1 . imprison
HARD LABOUR. 55 HARD LABOUR.
men t after levy and no sufficien t distress ; 2, w h en it ismade to appear to th e Magistrate judicially on eviden ceformin g part of th e proceedings an d conviction an d
sen ten ce th at Defendan t h as no goods or ch attels .
Rodn ey v . Sampson . Idemin trespass cases. Alber tv. Doug las .
An d w h ere h ard labour can be imposed and th e Magis
trate orders distress, th e Defen dan tmay be detain ed
pen din g th e return of th e w arran t of distress. Jeffreyv . Burrow es .
Un der 1 9 of 1856 S. 345 a Magistratemay order in
w riting th at th e Defen dan t go a t large or h emay detainhimin safe custody un til return h emade to th e w arr an tof distress un less security be given . Such order of
deten tionmay be given before distress w arran t is actuallymad e out, but th e w ar ran tmust .be completed an d put
inmotion w ith in a s brief a time a s is practicable. Ra jutteah v . An son .
Wh ere th e O rdinan ce auth orises infl iction of a fine
an d r ecovery un der 1 9 of 1 856 a nd 1 5 of 1859 S. 3 an
ad judication of fine of $241” an d in th e a ltern ative
a w arding imprisonmen t in th e first in stan ce is bad .
Prin ce v. King ; De Freitas v . Cuckow ; Prin ce v. Rickford ; De Jesus v. King ; Con tra , Moon ligh t Scrutch erv. Fauset.
Wh ere th e O rdin ancemakes th e offence pun ish able byfin e an d in default imprisonmen t, an d th e Magistrateorders imprisonmen t on fa ilure of distress an d dra w s upth e forma l conviction in th e w ords of th e O rdin an ce, th e
Court is boun d by th e formal conviction .Webster v.Birch .
Under 20 of 1856 th e Magistrate h as th e pow er to
aw ard 30 days’imprisonmen t for h aving possession of
rumsupposed to h ave been stolen w ithout givin g a good
accoun t of th e same . In case th e fine imposed can not
be levied by distress, h e can n ot sentence Defen dan t in
th at even t to be imprison ed for tw omon th s to commen cefromth e termination of th e 30 days. Williams v.
Simpson .
Un der Masters’an d Servan ts
’ Act4of 1864an d 2 ofof 1 853, for refusing to do w ork &c. , th e conviction
sh ould be for 30 days w ith h ard labour and not for 30
HARD LABOUR. 56
days w ith h ard labour an d to be imprison ed for a furth erperiod of 30 days at t he termination of th e first sen
tence .
”Gordon v . Binn s.
TERM OE IMPRISONMENT .
Un der th e Small Pen alties O rdin an ce th e intention ofth e L egislature is to limit th emaximumterms of imprisomen t a s th e altern ative for certain amounts of fines;but th er e is n o limit fixed for aminimumtermofimpr isonmen t , an d a Magistrate is w ith in h is jurisdictionin ad judgin g a period of 7 days
"
imprisonment in defaultof failure of paymen t of fin e of $2, alth ough th e O rdinance(3 of 1 868) limits th e terms of imprisonmen t for a penaltyn ot exceedin g $2 to 7 days an d for a penalty exceeding$2 but n ot exceeding $5 to 14days. Bow en v. Ch apman .
Wh ere th e O rdin ance empow ers imprisonment for 30
days”th e Magistrate cann ot aw ard imprisonment for
amonth .
”Ping-a
-Win g v . Pile David v. Hossann ah .
FORCOSTS.
Un der 20 of 1 856 th e Magistra te h as n o pow er to
aw ard imprisonmen t in default of a paymen t of a penaltyor costs for a ssaulting an officer in th e execution of h is
duty in executing a distress w ar ran t, or to aw ard costs
a t all . Rodney v. Sampson ; Idemon ch arge for not
h aving n ame legibly pain ted on car t. Naugh ten v. Lloyd .
H ospita l Regula tion s . See IMMIGRANT.
H a w ker .
Th ose w h o in stead of occupying a fixed place of
busin ess an d w a iting about for customers to come to th em,carry th eir g oods tomeet th eir customers are Haw kers,
Bush ell v . Solomon (cit . Tax O rdin an ce 1 886, S. 13, 8
of 1 880 S.
A single act of selling does not con stitute aman a
H aw ker , a s th at h e oug h t to take out a licen ce . Van
Brook v. King ; Burrow es v . Grabes (O rd . 1 5 of 1888)as distinguish ed fromBush ell v. Solomon , w h ere th e
O rdinance enacted th a t any w h o carries on the trade”
of a huckster and carries”h is goods an d sells, barters,
HAWKER. IMMIGRANT.
exposes, or offers to sell th e same ; th e w ords carries
h is goods”being left out of th e O rdin ance 1 5 of 1 888.
Th e fact th a t Defen dan t h ad a board laid on tw o
barrels, an d on it exposed beef for sale on Sun day 2mdJanuary an d Sun day 9th Ja nuary does n ot con stitute
h ima H aw ker . Bush el l v. Solomon .
A Huckster’s licen ce does n ot entitle a person to sell
freshmeat on th e public road or in a cart. Burrow es
v. Joaquim.H or ses .
A stud h orse is'
n ot exempt fromtaxation as a h orse
kept for trade or h ire . Dorn ford V. De Ch alus .
LICENCE FOR— See CARRIAGE.
H olid ay .
Notice served ormade returnable on a dies non is
illega l . Y oung v. Miller ; but w h ere n otice gives a cer
tain n umber of days in w h ich to do a certain act, Sun dayis n ot to be excluded , ih , in Martin s v . Joseph it w a s
h eld th at w h ere a th in g is to be be don e w ith in a certain
number O f d ays an d th at time expires on a Sun day, th eSun day is to be reckon ed on e of th ose days.
No judicia l act ough t to be don e on a Sun day, butmin isterial actsmay be law fully executed on Sun day.
Y oung v . Miller (Macca lly’
s case ; 9 Coke
Service O f n otice of review on Sun day is good . Martinv. Joseph (cit . 29 Car
H uckster .— See HAWKER.
H usban d ,desertion of w ife — See POORLAW.
I l leg a l Ar rest — See ARREST.
Immig ra n t .
Not amenable to Ma ster and Servant Act of 1 853.
Moon ah v. Ag ard but h e is boun d to Obey th e ordersof th e d riverf
’
a s th e d river is th e agen t ad in terimof th eman ager . Carruth ers v . Khoondan sing .
H
IMMIGRANT. 58 ABSRNOE,
ABSENCE FROM WORK, Excess FROMWORK.
Eyidencemust Sh ow th at Defen dan t did not finishw ork w ith out law ful .excuse . Davidson v. Gopaul.
Immigrant is bound to begin his w ork on Monday, ifrequired to do SO . McConn ach ie v . Gunn esn.
O nus of proving th at w ork w as n ot done w ith out lawful excuse lies on th e prosecution . Daw son v. Gopaul .Ch arge for absence fromth e estate sh ould lay that
such absen ce w as w ith out leave. Gray v. Khodobaccus.O fien ce of absence fromw ork is n ot cogn iz able by a
Magistrate in isolated cases, but falls to be dealt w ith byth e Immigration Depar tmen t un der S. 24and a numberof Section s of4of 1876, an d it is on ly w h en by repeatedOfien ces of absences th e immigran t h as qualified h imselfunder S. 1 5 as an h abitual idler th at th e Offence of
absence fromw ork comes un der th e jurisdiction of th e
Magistrate. Abdul Roh eman v. Robin son .
Under O rdin ance of 1 876 S. 23 a certificate of the
Immigration Agen t General th at th e immigran t w ent tothe Immigration Omoe to complain about h is w ages does
not protect th e immigran t froma ch arge of un law ful
absence . Monkh ouse v. Nar rain sing .
Itmust be sh ow n th at th e absen ce w as for reasonable
cause, th at h e h ad been refused a pass by th e employer,and th at th e cer tificate of th e Immigration Agen t General w as roduced to th e employer on h is return to th eestate. onkh ouse v. Narrain sin g ; Crosby v. Ramch arran ; but th ese do not apply to ch arge of refusingto begin w ork a rising out of th e fa ct th at th e immigranth ad left th e estate w ithout law ful excuse. Monkh ousev. Narrainsing .
Th e reasonable or law fuln ess O f th e excuse for beingabsent fromw ork is for th e Magistrate to decide . Whereth e immigran t w ith out leave attends th e Magistrate
’
s
Cour t to sue a person ow ing h immon ey and th e Magistrate decides th a t it is a law ful excuse th e Court w illnot interfere. Tucker v. Kan sut.
Wh eth er ill or w ell an immigran t is not justified in
going OEth e esta te w ith out leave. H aving left it w ith
out leave, th emere fact of h is falling ill w h en elf th e estate
IMMIGRANT. 59 HARITUAL IDLRR.
w ould n ot preven t h is becoming a deserter , alth ough itmigh t w ell in duce th e Magistrate to inflict a nomin a lpun ishmen t . Leggatt v. Mattabudal .Th e absen ce w h ichmakes an immigran t a deserter is
absen ce w ith out leave”
, not an absen ce “w ith out
“ law ful excuse”
. Ib.
DESERTION.
Ch arge again st immig ran t for deser ting fromtheplan tation froml st July 1 871 to 22n d November 1 874h e w a s arr ested on 5th Ja nuary 1 877. The Ma gistrateimposed a pen a lty O f $2 50 w ith imprisonmen t for 14d ays w ith h ard . labour , an d exten ded h is time fromtaking effect of O rdin an ce 7 of 1 873 (l st July) to 22nd »
November 1 874. Held on review th at by efiluxiou oftime (22n d November 1874) th e inden ture h ad expired ,an d th at th e pa st desertion in 1 871 could n ot be prosecutedun der 7 of 1 873, an d th a t th e con tinuing of a ny Offen ceof desertion afterw ard s committed by th e immig ran tcea sed w ith th e expiry of h is indenture . Sookh oov . O z ann e .
Wh ere an immigr an t is inden tured under4of 1 864(Sin ce repea led ) a n d sen ten ced to pen a l servitude for a
felony for five years w h ile 4of 1 864existed , an d h is
termof pena l servitude expires after th e repea l of th e
O rdin an ce , h is in den ture is a t an en d on th e completionof h is sen ten ce n otw ith stan din g th e passin g of a la ter
O rdin an ce 7 of 1 873. A'
gard v. Crosby.
EXTRATIME.
Working extra time is n ot illegal if th e immigran t ispaid for th e same a t th e r a te n ot less th an w h ich ordin
ary time is paid for . Hun ter v . Doorgan .
If an immig ran t is sen ten ced -for a breach of th e la w
and is released before h is termof imprisonmen t h as
expired , h e is n ot boun d to return on th e esta te for th e
per iod of h is un expired sen ten ce . Mayers v.Ruggon auth .
HABITUAL IDLER.
Un der 4of 1876 a w oman is n ot an h abitual idler .
Brassington v. Roybia .
IMMIGRANT. 60 RESIDENCE, &O .
H OSPITAL REGULATIONS.
Tomake th e immigran t amen able to h ospital rulesh emust h ave been sen t to th e h ospita l
”by th eman ager
or overseer actin g un der h is auth or lty. Spen ce v. Sookh a .
Th is rulin g appllies to oth er s th an in den tured immig ran ts sen t to th e h ospital by th eman ager . Ib.
It is n ot an offen ce for th emoth er of th e ch ild h erselfn ot
.
bein g an in -patien t to take h er ch ild th en an in
pa tien t in th e estate’
s h ospital fromth e h ospital . Solimon v . Garn ett .An in den tured immigran t being on th e estate and
fal ling ill , h as n o righ t to quit th e esta te an d go to theColon ia l H ospital in stead of to th e estate
’s hospital.
Leggatt v . Matabbudda l.
Putting on h ospital cloth es on immigran ts.-See
ASSAULT.
PROOF OF INDENTURE, &C.
To prove th a t Defendan t is an immig ran t, th e registered con tractmust be produced an d evidence O f th eid en tity O f th e party a s party to th e con tractmust beg iven . Craigen v. Mongar . Th e eviden ce in th is case
w as th e immigran t sw earing I aman inden tured immigran t to Pln . Aurora .
” Th is w as h eld not to be evidence.
Con tra in James v . Lilmone.
COMMUTATION .
If th e immigran t is w illing th eman ager O f th e estatemay commute th e in den ture w ith out any fee being paidto th e estate. 7 O f 1854, s . 28. Gridin v. Crosby.
RESIDENCE O N ESTATE.
An immigran t is boun d to inh abit th e dw elling w h ichth e employer is bound to provide for h im. Daw son v.
Mun da ll ; cit . 1 32— 1 36 of 7 of 1873, 1 6 O f4O f 1876.
H e is n o t boun d to sleep on th e esta te a t n igh t . Bremnerv . Joycurn ,
th e absen ce fromth e esta te being a w orkingd ay and n igh t, ib, th e employermust elect w h eth er h eproceed s un der S. 1 6 of4of 1 876 or un der SS. 132— 136
of 7 of 1 873. Ib.
IMMIGRANT 62 INFORMATION.
Th e fact th at on ly a certain sumw as earn ed by theImmig ran t, is n ot of itself sufiicien t to convict h imofw ilful in dolence . to.
Idem— If evidence is, th at Defen dan t earn ed nothingan d w as not a patien t in h ospital . Goolab v . Porter.
A ch arge of w ilful n eg ligen ce during w orking h ourson Mon day,
”22md May 1876, is good . Bunsee v. Brand .
Impr isonmen t in lieu of Fin e .— See HARD LABOUR.
In d en tur e , — best eviden ce of. —See EVIDENCE; alsoIMMIGRANT (Proof) .
In fa n t , Age O f. —See AGE.
In feren ce .
Guilt is not in ferred fromth e occurren ce of w h atmightl
fi
av
l
re h appened con sisten tly w ith innocence. Bascomv.
e ia .
Th e Court can in tend noth ing in favour Of convictionsand w ill in ten d n oth ing again st th em. Ib. ; Turnkey v.
King (cit . Rv. H a z ell, 1 3 Ea st 141 ; Taylor on Evidence,
3rd Ed . 141 , 142) Ned v. De Guara (cit . Rv . Trelaw ny1 T. R. 1 22 ; R. v. Damon
,1 Ch it. Rep . See
INFORMATION and JURISDICTION .
In forma tion .
For an ofien ce again st public policymay be laid andset inmotion by any person . Cox v. Bascom(case ofh arbouring immigran ts on board a vessel is a case againstpublic policy, an d is amatter punish able on conviction,w h ichmean s summary conviction . It) .An in formation th a t defen dan t did occupy a store in
w h ich goods w ere exposed for sale at lot 9 or 12,Werk-em-Rust , w ith out being provided w ith a licence
”
is good . Lopes v. King ; but if for un law fully en ter
ing on lot an d stea lin g a certain portion of burnt
earth , &c . is bad , a s it does n ot appear w h eth er ch arge
is for trespass or larceny . San tos v. Douglas. Furth er,see DUPLICITY.
To bemade in w riting , butmay bemade orally to theMagistrate. Wrigh t v. Garn ett.
INFORMATION. 63 SPECIFICWORDS.
If in w riting it n eed n ot be signed b Complain an t SOlon g as Defendan t pleads. Semp le v. illiams.
It n eed not be lodged Magistrate’
s Clerkbefore application for summon s ismade .to Magistrate. Ih .
Wrigh t v. Garnett .It is n ot n ecessary to give or take evidence on oath on
an information to lay foun da tion for summon s. Wrigh tv . Garn ett ; as th e fact of th e oath lays no foun dationin law . 16. (cit . Reg . Ga rden
,5 Q . B. D.
TIME TO LAY .
Wh ere th e law allow s an in formation to be laid w ith ina g iven time , say amon th , n o conviction can lie if
in formation is laid after th e expiry of th emonth . Coxv. Bascom.Th e time limited for commen cin g proceedingsmust be
strictly adh ered to. ib ; (cit . R. Tolly, 3 East ,467 .
Th e absence fromcolony O f Defen dan t does n ot affect
th e question . Itmay be a good reason for suspen dingth e issue of summon s. ib (cit. Potts v. Cambridge, 8,E. B.
,
DEFECT.
Adefect or Omission ,if itmigh t be omitted altogeth er ,
does n ot vitiate w h at is cor rectly stated . Mar tin v.
Burrow es (cit . Paley on Con . 1 68 ; R. v. H a ll, I . T. R. ,
320 ; R. v . Jefiries,4, T. R. , 769 ; R. v. B rantley, 29,L . J. M . C.
For using amule an d car t on th e public road w ith out
h aving th e n ame an d number th ereon in plain legible
letters an d figures, is bad for vagueness. Naugh ten v.
Lloyd .
Wh en ch arge is vague th e Court w ill n ot direct th e
Magistrate to en tertain th e same . Gray v. Rohory.
Furth er , see CONVICTION — DEFECT.
SPECIFIC WORDS.
Ch argemust be for a specific offence an d n ot for an
ofl en ce w h ich in th e Opin ion of th eMagistrate is amatterof law , and it ough t not to be left to th e judgmen t O f a
INFORMATION. 64 SPECIFICWORDS.
w itn ess. Ben . v . Mich elson ; (R. v. Sp en ling, I . Str . ,
497 ; R. v. Popp lefw ell, I . Str . ,
686 ; R. v . Ch aren cy, 2,Ld . , Ray, 1 368 ; R. v. Roberts, I . St . ,
Ach arge th at Defen dan ts bein g agricultura l labourers,an d employed a t B . P . , an d left th e service of th eir
employer w ith out givin g 14days previous n otice, contain s a sufficien t averment th a t th ey h ad con tracted into
th e service of th eir employer . Moon ah v .Aga rd .
Ch arge Should be so specific a s to informDefen dan tof w h at part O f th e law h e is ch arged w ith ; Unmaid v .
Burrow es an d th us en able th e Magistra te to adjudicateaccording to th e righ t of th ematter . Semple v.Williams.
If it does n ot Sh ow a lega l ch arge an d a conviction
follow s, it could be amen ded by th eReview Court if th erebe eviden ce to con vict . Sirdar v. Langevin e.
It is n ot requisite th at th e Statute Sh ould be specifiedin th e ch arge w h en th e Ofien ce created by th e Statuteis al leged in statutory terms. Joseph v . Ruck ; w h enth e descr iption of th e Offen ce is la id in th e w ords of th e
O rdin an ce crea tin g th e Offen ce , or in Simila r w ords, itis sufficient . Lopes v. Kin g , cit . O rd in an ce 1 7 of 1 880,S. 20 ; Glasgow v . H ardeen .
In offen ces un der th e O piumO rdin an ce th e in formationmigh t be so specific a s to in formDefen dan t Wh at par t ofth e law on th is subject h e is ch arged w ith tran sg ressing .
Unmaid v. Burrow es .
Need n ot state pa rticular O rdin an ce un der w h ich it isbrough t , but , if it is so specified , Complain an t is boun dby it if h emakes amistake a s to th e O rdin an ce. Martin
v . Birch ; Cah uac v . Birch .
Wh ere in forma tion is for failure tomake an en try inth e O piumBook of O piumtaken out by Defen dant fromBond on 25th August 1 864, on or about th e time of h isreceivin g 1 0 lbs. of Opium(22 of 1861 S. 6) an d th ech arge does n ot Specify th at the O piumw as received inth e shop, h eld th a t th is w as n ot an excessive inten dment In favour O f th e law to h old th at th e law a nd th ech arge n ecessarily uph eld th at th e a lleged receipt of th eO pIumby th e Defen dan t at h is sh op w as at all even tsfor and in respect of th at Sh op, in law . Ch an -ch ayCh ing v. Bethun e .
JOINT O FFENDERS. 66 JURISDICTION.
Join t O ffen d ers .
Where tw o ormore labourers con tract to w ork and
commit a breach of th e con tract, ch a rg es sh ould be lodgedagain st each , an d n ot on e ch arge ag ain st all guilty of
such breach . Davis cl d l v. Sampson et d l.
Wh ere th e in formation ch a rges a join t ofien ce ea favieagain st t w o ormore per son s it is for: th e Mag istrate
after ascertaining th e n ature O f th e ca se, to use h is dis
cretion in determin ing w h eth er h e sh ould try th eDefend
an ts join tly O r severa lly or n o . Glasgow and Coates
v. Bran don .
Th e join t aw a rd of on e fin e again st severa l Defen dants
is erron eous, w h eth er th e offen ce is in its n atur e single
or join t .‘
McLean v. Bobeira et a l but w h ere several
Defen dan ts are join ed , th e conviction Sh ould be joined toto preven t accumulation O f costs
“
. Reynold s v . Bourne .
H eld doubtful w h eth er if th ere be join t offen ders th eresh ould be a separ a te con viction for each . Amos v . H aly .
Join t Respon den ts’
casemay be w ith draw n a s again st
On e an d sustained a s again st a n oth er . Jacobsv.Couchman .
Jud gmen t . See PRONOUNCING .
Jur isd iction .
GENERAL.
.Wan t of jurisdiction can not be amen ded un der 5 of1865 , S. 25 . Bh eekh arry v . McLea n .
Th e convictionmust sh ow day, year , an d place w h ere
offence w as committed . Hoare v. Duggin .
Proceeding s sh ould Sh ow Caption , Sign ature to th edeposition s, fin ding or judgmen t, an d s tatemen t of Defendan t
’
s presen ce . Joh n son v. Jack a lso, th at th e case
fell w ith in th e Magistrate’
s jurisdiction . Rodn ey v.
Samson .
CAPTION.
Th e Caption is to be taken as sh ow ing jurisdiction .
Gilbert v. Barnes ; and also th at J .P. w as acting in an dfor th e colony. D
’Aguiar v. H arris.
JURISDICTION . 67 O F THE JUSTICE.
O F REVIEW COURT .
Th e Review Cour t h a s n o jurisdiction un der the Lan d
lord an d Ten an t O rdin a n ce for ren t, damag es, &c. Cor ryv . Viera ; Joseph v . Cambridg e.
Th e law un der w h ich th e Review Court is con stituted ,con fers n o jurisdiction on th e Cour t w h er e th ere is n ot
any question a s to sufficien cy of eviden ce , to d ecide th a t
th e Magistrate h as foun d th e facts erron eously ; on th e
oth er h an d if finding th e facts cor rec tly h e h a s n ot applied
correct prin ciples in d raw ing leg a l con clusion s fromsuchfacts, th e Courtmay remedySuch error . An son v . Klien .
Furth er , see Post.
O F THE JUSTICE.
Of Magistra te . Th e Magistrate h as n o jurisdiction incases of dispute betw een ow n er s of property w h ich is
un divided . Bow en v . Buttery (ca se of d amag in g a privy
put up by on e propr ietor w ithout con sen t of th e o t h e r) .Th e Mag istra te h a s n o jurisd iction on a ch a rge for
obstructing th e Police in th e execution of duty. Al lick
v . Joseph .
Th e Magistra temust a ct in th e district in an d for
w h ich h e h a s been a ppoin ted to act, h is jurisd iction insummary proceed ing being distin ctly limited by th e
en actmen ts under w h ich h is Office a n d auth ority a r e
con stituted , n ot on ly w ith r efer en ce to th e limits of th ecolony, but w ith refer en ce to in ter na l d ivisions or d is
tr icts of th e colony . Aben dan on v . Sprosto n (cit. O rd in ance e O f 1 837 S. 1 22 of 1 839 s . 2 ; O rder in Council
S. 2 ; 5 of 1 868 S. 29, 30 ; 1 8 Ed . 3 C. 2 ; 14Ed .
3. 3. 21 Van L eeuw en b . 2, p . 1 0 ; H a rr ison v. King ;
Gla sgow v. De Freitas ; St rag h an v. Darrell ; (R. v . H a z ell
1 3 Ea st0
Th e Magistra temust be sa tisfied by th e evulence th a t
h e h as jurisdiction a s to th e loca lity. Gra n t v . JO SI n .
Th e eviden cemust be on record SO th a t a Cour t of Reviewsh a ll be able to see th at th e Magistra te h ad in fact
jurisdiction . De Souz a v .Roach Aben dan on V . Sproston .
H is jurisd ictionmust be sh ow n on th e face of th e
ch arge. Bun see v. Brand ; Bh eekh arry v. McLean .
I 2
JURISDICTION. 68 O F THE JUSTICE.
Wh ere th e Caption sh ow s th at th e Magistrate w as
sittin g a t Vreed-eu-Hoop in th e Demera ra River Judicial District, an d th e in formation bea rs th a t th e offen ce
w as committed at a place n amed in th e same d istrict th eavermen t of jurisdiction is sufficien t . Gilbert v . Ba rnes ;De Souz a v . Roach uph oldin g Aben dan on v. Sproston .
Wh ere th e summon s served on th e Defen da n t g ives th e
locus in gun of the Offen ce a s Pln . Klien Pouderoyen”
w ith out sta tin g th a t th e place w a s in th e DemeraraRiverJudicia l District, th e Defen dan t on review of th e proceed
ing smust sh ow th a t h e w a smisled or emba r rassedth ereby a s to th e jurisdiction of th e Magistra te, or th a t
h e called a tten tion to th e d efect w h en befor e th e Mag istra te . G ilbert v. Barnes .
Wh en evidence is th a t th e occurren ce took place onBrick DamGeorgetow n , itmust be understood to
refer to th e Georgetow n in Demer aramen tion ed in th ech a rge th en un der investig a tion . It can n ot be surmisedth a t th e w itnessmean t some oth er place or tow n of th atn ame in H a lifax or else w h ere . De Jonge v . Dar rell .
Wh ere Offen ce is committed a t Meadow Ban k “ in th is /
district”th ere can be no d oubt th a t a ll th e parties a re
speaking of th e Mea dow Ban k in th e d istrict, coun tya n d colonymen tioned” in th e ch arge, and a jury w ould
so fin d . Gomes v. H a rcour t .
'l h e true test in cases O f summary conviction appea rs
tome (Smith C J.) is w h eth er on the fa ce of th e papersth ere is sufficien t eviden ce to go to a jury if th e conviction h ad been by the verdict of a jur v in stead O f byt h e d ecision of th e Magistrate .
” Math ieson v. Gray ;cit. Dublin v, Gray (Brow n v. Turner . 32 L . J. N . S.
M. C.
Wh ere th e O rdin an ce d ecla res th a t for doin g a certainact d efen dan t Sh a ll be deemed guilty of a n Offen cea n d Sh a ll be liable to a fin e
”an d such fin e sh a ll
be prosecuted an d recovered by summary execution byH er Majesty
’
s Attorn ey Gen era l"
th e Magistra te h asjurisdiction to try th ema tte r a nd ad judicate un der 19 O f1 85 6 Cox v Bascom(cit . Attorney Gen er a l v. Rad lofi
'
10Ex. 84Ca ttel v. Ireson ,
27 L . J. M . C. 1 67) a n d th ema tter "
can be tried on Summary Con viction . Ib.
JURISDICTION. 70 PROOF BY INFERENOE
Gordon ; (cit. King v. John son , 1 , T.E. ,Fur th er,
see CONVICTION an d AMENDMENT.
PROOF OF.
Wh en jurisdiction in revenue cases is n ot proved , th e
Magistratemay d ismiss, but h e is n ot boun d to. H emayh ear th e defen ce an d prove jurisdiction by th e defen ce .
Marques v . Fra n cis .
Proof of locality to found jurisdiction does n ot differin its n ature fromth e proof of facts con stitutin g an
offence . Mon ick v . Solomon (cit . Reg. v. In h abita n ts ofSternforth , 1 1 . Q . B. ,
PROOF BY INFERENCE.
Noth ing sh all be inten ded to be out of th e jurisdictionof a Supreme Court but th a t w h ich specifically appears
to be so ; n oth in g sh a ll be inten ded to be w ith in th e
jurisdiction of an In ferior Cour t but th at w h ich is so
expressly alleged , and jurisdictionmust be on th e face O fth e ch arge an d proved in th e proceeding s. Stragh an v.
Darrell ; (cit . Pea cock v. Bell, I. Saun d ,Wh ere th e district Commissarymakes a seiz ure , and
eviden ce is th at it took place a t Spar en daam,” an d
Commissary is in ch arge of th e East Coast Fiscaldistrict, an d Sparen daamis in th at district an d on th e
East Coast, an d th e Magistrate sits a t Sparen d aam,itmust be h eld th at th e Magistrate h ad jurisdiction ,
alth ough th e w ord s Coun ty of Demerara , Colony of
British Guian a , be not used . Dinez v. Sw a in ; cit .
O rd . 1 8 O f 1864, S.4.Wh en ch arge lays Offen ce a s h aving been committed
at a cer ta in place, an d jurisd iction is g iven in full in th e
ch arge, an d th e w itness Speaks O f the Sh op at Meadow
Bank in th is district ,”th e evidencemust be taken as
h eld {to Sh ow th a t Meadow Ba nk is in th e district, coun tyan d colony as laid in th e ch arg e. Gomes v. H arcourt .
Wh ere th e parish of St . Paul is g iven as th e place
w h ere th e Offen ce w as committed , Smith C.J . said
formy part follow ing ex p arte Atttson (Pollock C.
B.) 24L .J . N ._S. M. C. 72, if I considered it n ecessary,
I s h ould not h esitate to order eviden ce to be adduced
JURISDICTION. 71 PROOF RY INFERENCE.
beforeme to prove th e locality un der 23rd S but
seein g th at th e parish es O f th e colony a re establish ed byO rdin an ce I amboun d to take judicial notice th at th eParish of St . Paul is in th e Coun ty of Demerary inthis Colony.
” Math ieson v . G ray.
Th e Cour t can n ot take judicial n otice th at a plan tationor parish is w ith in a particular judicial district . Bh eek
h arry V . McLean .
Wh ere th ere is noth ing in th e ch arge or in th e evi
dence to Sh ow offen ce a s h aving been committed in th eMagistrate
’
s jurisdiction , th e ch argemerely statin g th e
offen ce a s h aving been committed in Ben tin ck Street,North Cumingsburg ,” a n d th e on ly referen ce to th e
loan s in quo in th e eviden ce is, th e Defen dan t’
s sh op in
Ben tinck Street,”itmust be taken as if n o jurisdiction
h ad been proved . Stragh an v. Darell .
Th e Magistrate before h e can convict,must h aveeviden ce th at th e Commissa ry w as actin g in h is d istr ict
(un der O rd . 1 864, s . 4) Din ez v. Sw ain n otmerelyth at h e is an assistan t Commissa ry. Cabral v. Y ounge,a s a distr ict Commissary w ith out eviden ce of h is employ.men t, is n ot w ith in th e purvie w of O rd . 1 8 of 1 864,S. 4. Ib.
Th e jurisdiction to h ear an d convict in th e absence of
Defen dan t is a statutory on e, an d it is necessary th a t th e
facts to foun d th e jurisdiction Sh ould be stated on record ,or at least th at th ey sh ould be capable O f being r educed
by n ecessary in ference fromw h at is stated . Th emaximomnia p raesnmter rite et solomn itnr esse aeta does not
apply to proceedings befor e Magistr a tes, especia lly w h en
th e question is as to jur isdiction , an d Wh er e th e record
book leaves it in doubt w h eth er th eMagistra te h a d jurisdiction or not, th e Court can n ot supply th e defect byin ten dmen t . Gomes v . Bur row es ; (cit . R. v . In h abitan ts
of All Sa in ts, Southamp ton , 7 , B. C. , 790 ; R. v.
H a zell, 1 3, East, 141 Dempster v. Parn ell, 4, Scott,N .S. , 39, Stan ton v. Styles, 5 , Ex. 583 ; Taylor v . Clemson ,
1 1 Cl . Fin .
Th e Court of Review must be enabled fromth e proceeding s of th e In ferior Court to see th at th ere is jurisdiction such as w ill support th e proceedings. Aben dan on
JURISDICTION. 72 DISPUTEDTITLE.
v . Sproston (cit Taylor V . Clemson ,1 1 Cl . an d F. 610
Mayor gm. of Lon don v . 00a , L . R. 2 H . L .
Stragh a n v . Darrell ; Reyn old s v . Benn et ; San ders v.
Fox ; Gran t v. Josa ; H arrison v . King .
Th e fa cts r equisite to foun d jurisdiction sh ould be
stated on th e recor d , or at least th ey Sh ould be capable
of being deduced by n ecessary in feren ce fromw h atvisstated . Gomes v . Bur row es .
Jur isdiction n eed n ot n ecessarily be p roved by direct
sta temen t . Pow ers V . Ruck .
CONSENT.
Jurisdictionmust be Sh ow n on th e record an d th e w an t
O f it w h ere it is absent is n ot supplied by w aiver or con
sen t. H a rrison v. King .
IN CASES OF DISPUTED TITLE.
Mag istrate h as no jurisdiction in'
cases of dispute
betw een ow ner s of un divided lan d . Bow en v. Buttery.
Magistratemust n ot a llow h is ju risdiction to be oustedby amere preten ce O f righ t or by a surmise or an ticipa
tion of righ t w h ilst facts sh ow in g th e foun dation of th e
claima re n ot in evid en ce . Kryen h off V. Glasgow .
Wh en a question of title is in dispute , th e Magistrate
is to en ter in to th e n ature of th e claim; n ot in order to
to determin e its validity, but to d iscover w h eth er th e
facts Sh ow a foun da tion on w h ich Defen dan tmigh t on
some g roun ds kn ow n in law h ave believed h e h ad a righ t .
Lon don v . David ; (cit. 7 8 . Geo . ,4, 1 2 of 1 846
,
S. 29 ; Simon v. Gouvia ; Ca stillo v. Fer reir a ; Rod neyv . Rodn ey.
Idem, a s to question raised w h eth er complain an t isth e lan d lord en titled to sue . Hin ds v . Frank.
Wh ere th e eviden ce clea r ly Sh ow s a dispute as to. th e
proper ty, Magistra te is to d ismiss th e complain t . Jamesv . Adams ; Kryen h off v . Glasgow ; (Cor n w a ll v. Saunders, 3, B . A. , 206 ; Lea tt v. Vin e, 30, L . J. M. C. ,
207 ; R. v . Nun n elley, E. B. E., 852 ; R. v. Bla ck
burn , 32, L . J . M . C.,41 ; R. v. Stempson ,
4, B. 85 S. ;
Hutson v. McRa e, 4, B. S. , 585 ; Foa lger v . Steadman,L . R. 8, Q . B .
JURISDICTION. 74 TRESPASS.
evidence th ereof w as ofiered , and th ough in fact title
w as not in dispute, h is determina tion w ill n ot be dis
turbed , even th ough th e Supreme Court sh ould on th e
same facts h ave a rrived at a d ifieren t, con clusion .
_
Th erulemay be briefly expressed th us, th a t th eMagistrate
’
s
d etermin ation w ill be overruled if h e improperly decidesth a t h is jur isdiction is n ot ousted ; th at it w ill n ot be
disturbed if h e decides th at it is. Gomes v. Green (cit .R. v . Stempson ,4B. S. R. v. Peak, Con M. C. vol . 2
320 ; Legg v. Pa rdow , Cow M, C. vol . 1
Amere asser tion of r igh t w h ere no groun d for it or
on ly an impossible groun d is stated , is no an sw er for w il
ful trespa ss. Ch apman v. Pooler .
If Defendan t h a s a colour of righ t h ow ever w eak th e
claim, it w ill be sufficien t to oust th e jurisdiction O f th e
Magistrate . Gomes v. Green (cit . R. v. Speed , 1 Ld .
Ray 583 Pa ley,4ed . 1 1 8) but w h ere such a colour O f
righ t does n ot or cannot exist, th e Magistrate h as a righ t
to decide summarily, ib (cit .Ma dden v. Por ter , 1 CoxM.C.
5 3 ; Corn w a ll v . Saun ders, 2 Cow M . C Lia tt v. Vine,2 Core M. C. 330 ; Hutson v. Ma cioe, 1 Con M. C.
Th e titlemust be clear ly ra ised , Davson v . Gon salves,a nd th e Magistra temust judge of th e baud fides O f th eclaimof title in dispute . Rogers v. Pequen o .
Questions of bounda rymay sometimes bematters of
title in th is specia l sen se , but th ey often occur asmattersof fact. Ferreira v.Wigh t .Wh ere Magistra te en ters in to ca se w h ere dispute as to
title arises and it turn s out th at Prosecutor is ow ner in
fee of th e locus in guo an d Defen dan t is a w ilful tres
passer h e is justified in convicting for an assault arisingfromth e trespass . Liverpool v. Daly.
Wh ere the tresp ass is in fact through amistaken idea ofrigh t, it is not a w ilful trespass ; a w ilful trespasser isn otmerely an in truder w ith out h aving a righ t, h e is onew h o goes on th e land or building of an oth er w ithoutbelieving th at h e h as a righ t to go th ere . If h e w entin pursuan ce of a n h on est claimO f r ig h t even alth oughth e claimw as groun dless a nd un reasonable
,h is SO going
does n otmake h ima w ilful trespasser . Ch apman v.
Pooler ; Castillo V . Teixeira .
JURISDICTION . 75 TRESPASS.
Wh ere Defendan t possesses h imself of grow ing crops of
anoth er un der amistake an d avers th e fact th a t h e h ad
cut th embymistake before h e is questioned , it w ill bestrong,
eviden ce of a trespa ss. Ben v . David (cit . EastP. C. 661 ; 2 Bus. on CrimesWhere Defen da n t goes on th e lan d un der a claimO f
title bondfide an d affixes a trespass boa rd , h e can n ot be
convicted O f being on th e lan d w ith out excuse 85 0 . un der
th e Vag rancy Act. Williams v. Roberts ; H ayw ood v.
Y oung ; Molineaux v . Sch ultz ; Rodn ey v. Rodn ey.
Atresp assfoi et a rmis an d in breach of th e peace is not
justified on th e groun d of disputed title . Rogers V .
Pequeno .
Wh ere th ere is a trespass board n ea r public road an d th e
Magistrate believes th a t Defend a n t w en t on th e lan d tolook for an d d rive aw ay h is cow it is n ot w ilful trespass .
Barclay v. Sw an .
Wh ere th ere is n o n otice boa rd n ea r amule pen an d
Defen dan t receives va lid n otice n ot to trespass, itmustbe Sh ow n th a t h e refused to leave on request before h ecan be convicted O f w ilful trespass . Arthur v. Moore .
Th emere p a ssing th roug h amule pen a s a sh ort cut
to th e estate’
s h ospita l is n ot per se a w ilful trespa ss in
th emule pen . 1 b.
Wh ere Defenda nt h as been p reviously w a rned not to go
on th e estate a nd h e goes as a pa ssen ger in a boa t in to a
priva te tren ch on th e esta te h e is a w ilful t respasser .
Adams v. Agard .
A labourer on a n esta te n ot"
sp ecia lly w a rn ed not to go
into th e building s is n ot a w ilful tr espa sser if h e goes
th ere . Thor nhill v. Pilg rim.Wh ere Defen dan t is order ed to quit th e esta te an d th e
order is n ot en forced , h e being still a llo w ed to remainon th e esta te a nd h e commits a breach of th e peace on
th e esta te, a nd th ere is n o proof of refusa l to quit on
requestmade w ith in th emean ing O f th e l st Section of
O rdin an ce 33 of 1850 on th e day h e commits such breach ,h e can not be con victed O f trespa ss . Abidola h v . Ba rclay.
Wh ere a p erson w orked on an esta te an d left a nd w a s
found on estate excusing h erself on th e g round th a t sh e
JURISDICTION. 76 TRESPASS.
h ad been sen t for by h ermoth er a located labourer onth e estate, a n d th at w h ile th ere sh e w a s delivered of a
ch ild , sh e can not be convicted of trespass. BascomV.
Nor ton .
No on e h a s a righ t to en ter on premises on th e invita tionOf employé of ow n er O f lan d if after such invitation th e
ow n er w ar n s such person n ot to en ter . Williams v . Kan all .
Mer e tresp a ss on foresh ore n ot accompan ied by destroying , en sn a ring , catch ing or taking ofi crabs or oth er
anima ls or attempting to do so , is not an offen ce un der
th e Trespass O rdinan ce 33 of 1 850. Ben jamin v . Bascom.Mistake w ill be no excuse for tr esp ass in a civil proceed
ing even if it be so in anymea sure upon crimin a l or penalpr oceedin gs, but still less could it g ive to th e trespa sser
a righ t to persist in h ismistake by in sistin g on th e
sur ren der of proper ty w h ich is n ot h is. Ferreira v.
Wigh t .Wh ereDefendan t in putting up a fen ce w en t on plantiff
’s
lan d a n d it is sw orn th at Defen dan t w as on h is ow n
lan d or a t all even ts on th e boun dary lin e, a title is in
issue , an d th e Magistr a te h as n o jurisdiction . Cassie
v. Miln e ; James v . Adams .
O n Crow n Lands.— Trespass on Crow n Lan ds is uht a
crimin a l or pen almatter . De Freitas v. Wig h t.
Wh er e Crow n O flicer sw ears on a ch arge O f t respassmgon Crow n Lan ds th a t h e believes th e lan ds to be Crow n
Lan d s because h e does n ot see th emin Berch eyk’
s
ch a r t an d fromin formation received an d n ot fromkn ow ledge of h is ow n , a n d Defen dan t establish es thatth e lan d h ad been w orked a s private proper ty a n d th a th e h ad h ad th emfromth e person w h o cla imed th emfromth e first , th e Magistrate can n ot decide th e question of
title r a ised . Lopes v. Backer .
La rceny of grow ing crop s in cludes a trespass on th elan d , but w h ere Defen dan t is convicted O f th e larceny j
h e
can n ot be convicted of th e trespass ar ising fromth elarceny . Ga rnett v. Dea n .
Wh er e Defen da nt bondfid e r aises a claimof ow n ersh ipon g roun ds possible in law an d g ives evidence in supportof such claim, th e Magistrate is to refrain fromadjudicating . Ca ssie v. Miln e.
LARCENY. 78 GROWING CROP.
foun d , it is not larceny in th e fin der . Rodericks v.
Simon s. Con tra , if h e believes th at th e ow n er can be found .
Ib. Th e belief in such case is to be in ferred fromth ecircumstan ces. 1b (cit. Reg . v. Thurbor n , 1 Den C. C.
387 Reg . v. Clyde, 37 L . J. M. C.
Wh ere a ll th e fa cts deposed to a re consisten t w ith inn o
cence, th e crimin a lity of th e accused oug h t not to depend
on th e in feren ce of a w itn ess . Allibocus v. Pon -a-ch ee.
In cases of in dictmen tfor la rceny, if th e offen ce turns
out to be embez z lemen t, Defen dan tmay be con victed O f
embez z lemen t, but th ese pow ers do n ot exten d to a summa ry procedure . Th e Mag istra temay amen d complaintto on e of embez z lemen t if facts turn out to be embez z lemen t a t any time before h is fin al decision an d convict of
embez z lemen t. Jessy v. Robb .
CHARGE FOR.
Comp la in tmust h ave th e w ord “feloniously in it or it
is bad . Angoo‘
v . Miller ; Jack v. Joh n ; Adams v. Poona
ch ie ; Jodh an v . Mearn s .
Th e ch arge may. be amended by addin g th e w ord
felon iously before tria l, but n ot a fter . Jack v. Joh n ;JOdh an v. Mea rn s.
Ach a rge for un la wfully stea ling certain cocoanut trees
of th e value O f th en g row in g in a garden is good .
Jodh an v. Mear ns see a lso LARCENY OF GROWINGr CROP.
Prep erty of sever a l p a rtn ersmust be la id in th e n amesof “A. an d oth ers,
”not in th e n ame of th e firm. H odge
v. McBurn ie .
Wh ere p roper ty is la id in th e n ame O f Timoth y Pilea conviction can n ot lie if eviden ce Sh ow s p roperty to beth e property of Samuel Pile .
”Pin -a-young V. Pile ;
Faria v . In n is . See AMENDMENT .
Th e va lue of th e goodsmust be laid and proved in th e
Mag istra te’
s Court to con stitute Petty larceny un der 20
of 1 856 an d n otmerely th e va lue O f th e property produced in eviden ce . Kelly v . Fa rley ; Ned v . De Guara .
L a r cen y of G row in g Crop .
Th ings w hich savour of th e r ea lty such a s g row ing trees
are not subjects of larceny at common law . Th e Legisla
LARCENY , GROWING CROP. 79 LICENCELAW.
tureh asmade depredation s upon grow ing plan ts, Offencesbut not felon ies under certain circumstan ces. JOdh anv. Mearn s ; Semple v. Butts. Th e enactmen ts are contain ed in th e Larceny O rd in an ce, S. 26—34inclusive, ibib, cit .An goo v. Miller Doorgan v. Miller as n ot in poin t.A conviction un der 20 of 1856 (Petty O ffen ces) for
h aving in possession a quan tity of ca n e tops suspected toh ave been stolen is bad . Semple v. Butts. As th ingsw hich savour of th e realty, &c . , see Supra .
L aw ful Excuse — See CRIMINAL MATTER.
Lease — See JURISDICTION.
Lecture for ch ar itab le purpose .—See CHURCH
—CIIAPEL.
Lees .
Under O rdinance 1 O f 1 870 it is not n ecessary to proveth at th e trench into w h ich lees w as run , h ad previouslyfresh w ater or w ater th at w a s n ot foul . Pln . Sophia v.
Th orn e. O nus O f origima li lies on ow ner O f esta te, Ib.
L eg a l Pr a ctition er .
Dicence,— To bemade liable for licence duty for keepingan ofiice, itmust be sh ow n in eviden ce th at h e kept a nOffice and tran sacted busin ess th ere . Belmon te v. An son .
Wh ere th e O rdinan ce (8 of 1887)makes a Lega l Fractitioner amen able to a licen ce for keeping a n Office, an
Advocate” is a Leg a l Practition er”, Ib, so is an
Attorn ey-a t-Law a nd a Bar rister . De Souz a v. Anson .
Pr ivilege— A Barrister ca nn ot claimprivilege from
givin g evidence as to an application for a licence to keepa.Tavern . D
’
oliveira v . Darrell .
Levy on Wa ges— O pposing .
-See ASSAULT.
L icen ce L a w .
ACommissa ry can not sup ersede the law an d g ran t permission to d o an act With out licence, if licen ce is requiredfor performan ce thereof. Jack v. H orton ; Hor ton 17.
Ch ester .
Keep and use.— Th e w ords of th e O rdinance being
LICENCE LAW. 80 SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
keep an d use a pplies to private carriages an d to th ose
for .h ire , an d Wh ere carriage is foun d in Defen dan t
’
s
place th e onus is on h imto Sh ow th at it w as n ot kept
a nd used . Gon salves v. An son .
Wh ere a g un is carried a t 8 am. and licence is
taken out at p.m. , th e licence does n ot exon erateh older fromth e effects O f ca rrying th e gun at 8 am.
w ith out licen ce . H arel v,Win t (cit . Campbell v. Str ange
w ay, 3 C. P . D . 1 05 as n ot in point) .Th emere carrying of a gun is n ot illegal . Bolton v.
Fern an des.
Alth ough th e law allow s sw in e tobe killed on auth orityof Commissary &c . w h en trespa ssin g on public road , th e
person w h o kills bymean s of un licen ced gun is liable forusing gun w ith out a licen ce, a s th e Commissary cannot
over ride‘
th e w ritten law . Ja ck v. Horton followmgH orton v. Ch ester .
LIQUOR.
Th e pen alty imposed by S. 1 0 of 8 of 1 858 is limitedto a ca se of selling Spirituous liquor un der proof froma cask or package h old ing less th an 20 gallon s. It does
n ot apply to th e case of a licen sed dea ler h avin g in h is
sh op rumof less th an required proof. Gomes v. Beth une
Gomes v. O lton .
SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
Wh ere O rdin an ce en acts th at w h ere tw o ormore person s n ot being partners sh a ll be establish ed a s sepa rate
store or sh op keepers in any premises, in each such case,
such person s sh all take out a separate licence , it does not
exten d to separate stores in sepa rate buildings on th e
same lot . Cuckow v . Perot et a l.
Wh ere Defenda nt h as a licen cefor a shop an d h e keeps
an oth er sh op on th e same lot even for th e sa le of the
same goods for w h ich h e h as a licen ce, h e is liable for
not h aving a licence for th e secon d sh op. Pequenov. Hill .
MAGISTRATE.82 APPEAL.
Magi str a te.
WHEN NO APPEAL LIES FROM HISDECISION .
Where p rvmd fa cie evidence is adduced O f an offence
and th e accused person h a s th emean s of rebutting an d
explaining th a t eviden ce if it w ere n ot leading to th e
truth ,th e Magistra te w ould righ tly take in to con sidera
tion th a t h is omitting to do so furnish es a stron g in fer
ence again st h im, butmuch caution is requisite inapplying th is prin ciple
. Gomes v. Solomon s .
Th e conclusion of the Magistra te onma tters of fa ct cannot be interfered w ith . How ell v. Straker . Th e Courtw ill n ot in terfere w ith th e fin din g of th e Mag istrate on
th e question O f fact if th er e is evidence sufficien t to
w arran t h imin th e con clusion to w h ich h e arrived . De
Freitas v. Seig art ; Garn ett v . Nich olson .
Th e Magistr a te sits a s a Jury an d review is not allow ed
on th e eviden ce w h en h e decides on th e eviden ce . Cumberlan d v. H in d s ; H or ton v . Abr ah ams, et a l ; Beel v.
Samuel ; H itz ler v. Clouston . Wh ere th e decision of th e
Magistra te en ables th e Cour t to come to th e con clusion
th a t h e h ad w eigh ed an d disbelieved th e eviden ce, th e
Court Will not in terfere. Kin g v . Gomes.
If th e proof is such th a t th e Magistrate could reason
ably come to th e con clusion th at th e issue is proved th ere
is no review of h is fin ding . Marques v. Fran cis .
Ma tter of fa ct a n d lam— Wh ere th e decision of th e
Magistrate w ould be a question of fact ormixed questionsof law an d fact th e Review Court w il l n ot in terfere.
Horton v . Abrah ams.
Th e conclusion of th e Cour t below fromma tters of factan d evidence un less eviden tly sw ayed by somemisappreh ension of la w or prin ciple or so en tirely inconsisten t
w ith Wh atmigh t appear to th e Cour t above th e direct
and pa lpable result of th e evidence, a s to appear nu
rea sonable or perverse, w ill n ot be in terfered . w ith , as
it is n ot desirable or even righ t for th e Court of appeal
to disturb such a d ecision . De Souz a v.Wrigh t; a lth ough
th e evidencemig h t h ave w arran ted a d ifferen t fin ding in
favour of Defen dan t . Bolton v. Fer nandes.
Th e Review . Court h as n ot th e“mean s O f estimating th e
MAGISTRATE. 83 APPEAL .
correctn ess of th e w eigh t of eviden ce in th e Court below ,
and it h a s n ot jurisdiction to do SO . Green v. Bra z o ;its jurisdiction in th is respect bein g limited by O rdina n ce5 of 1868 S. 1 0 . Pln . Soph ia v, Th or ne .
Th e Review 'ourt n o
'
d oubt examin es w h eth er th ere issufficien t eviden ce to sustain th e fin din gs, but th e poin t
on ce affirmed , all question s of th e credibility an d proba tiveforce of th e eviden ce are to be de termin ed so lely by th e
Magistrate a s t h ey a re to be determined by th e jury incrimin al tria ls in th e Supreme Court . Day v . Teixeira ;Jon es V . Bagot ; Allicock v . Lan ge .
Th e Magistra temigh t trea t th e eviden ce of th e Proseoutor a s un w orth y O f cred it an d dismiss th e ch arge simpliciter , in w h ich case th e decision is n ot revie w able ex
pa r te. Deeraj V. Keen o (cit. Br i tish g Foreign Pa ten tInven tion Co. ,
2, W. H . H . , 5 7 .
Wh ere an O rdin an ce (militia ) does n ot give a righ t ofappea l fromth e decision of th e Magistra te n o appea l
lies, n otw ith stan ding 5 of 1 868 a nd 1 9 of 1836 . Ca rberryet c l, v . Dun n Daw es v . Dun n .
Even in a doubtful ca se th e Court w ill n ot in ter fere
w ith th e Magistra te’
s decision w h ere th ere is n o ir regu
larity or illega lity. Roh ele r v. Bh eekun .
Th e Mag istra te’
s decision w ill n ot be disturbed except
under Special circumsta nces Jack v . Ja ck.
CASES IN WH ICH APPEAL LIES.
Error in La w .— Bond fides a s to belief th a t Defen da n t
took a w ay th e ar ticles a l leg ed to h ave bee n stolen un d er
a claimO f righ t is on e of fact w ith in th e Cogn iz an ce of
th e Magistra te , an d th e d ecision of th e Magist ra te is n ot
subject to review un less for some error in la w such a s
th e improper reception or rejection o f evidence o r t'
u t
th e decision w a s w h olly un w a rran ted by th e eviden ce .
Garn ett v. Dean .
Wh ere it is possible th a t th e Magistratemay h ive
founded h is dismissa l on lega l Objec tion “taken to th e
eviden ce on w h ich h e reserved d eCISlO I] , but expressed n o
Opin ion ,th e Cou rt w ill in terfere . Kin g v . Gome
Suficien cy of Evidence — Th e Court of Review h a s n o
jurIsdiction Wh ere th ere is not a ny question as to th e
MAGISTRATE. 84 APPEAL.
sufficien cy of th e eviden ce to decide th at th e Magistrate
h ad found th e facts e rron eously ; on th e oth er h and if
finding th e fa cts cor rectly h e h ad n ot applied cor rect
prin cipl es in dra w ing lega l con clusion s fromth ose factsth e Court can remedy such error . An son v . Klien .
Th e Cour t w ill en quire w h e th er th e eviden ce w as
sufficien t to susta in th e conviction ,an d th e test is w h eth er
th e eviden ce o r th e force of it , w as such th a t h ad th e
tria l been in th e Supreme Court th e ca se w ould righ tlyh ave been put to th e jury , or in oth er w or ds Wh eth er
th ere w as eviden ce before th e Magistra te fromw h ich a
person of ordin ary soun d judgmen tmigh t fair ly h avedra w n th e same in feren ce a s h e did . Gomes v . Solomon(cit . R. v . Glossop,4B . Ad . 16 ; R. v . Davis
,6 T. R.
1 78 Ryder v . Wombell, ex Ch . 4C. B . 32 ; Jew ell v.
Pa r r,1 3 C. B . 91 5
,Maule, or it h e applied th e law
w rongly to th e facts . Admin istra tor Gen era l v . King .
Th e Cour t w ill n ot in ter fere w ith a Magistrate’
s
d ecision upon amatter of fact un less it clea rly appears
th a t h e w as w rong . De Souz a v . Roach ; Hebeler v .
Frank ; Sucko w orth v . Dorn ford ; Lord v . An son ; Goula n a lly v. Dorn ford . It is th e Cour t
’
s duty to see t hat
th e Magistra te’
s conclusion fromth e eviden ce bea rs out
th e conviction . Silvan o v. Wa d e ; De Abrio v . Da rrell
(R v. In h a bitan ts of O dell, 341 L . J . 534a s n ot a pplicable)a n d reverse th e decision if necessary . Tulma n v. Prince.
Th e above rule applies to a d ismissa l . De Abrio v.
Darrell . Idema s to acquitta l . II) .In case of conflict Qf evidence, th e Magistrate is th e best
judge of th e w eigh t of such eviden ce, an d th e cr ed it due
to th e Witn esses examin ed before h imbut th e true test
in such ca ses of summa ry con viction appear s to be,w h eth er on th e face of th e papers th ere is sufficien t
eviden ce to go to a jur y in stead of being th e decision of
th e Magistra te . Dublin v . G rey.
If the Magistr a te app lied th e la w w rongly to th e'
facts
proved , th e Court of Review w ould set h imrigh t, but th eMagistra te is sole judge of th e facts . Admin istra torGen era l v . King (cit . R. v . Goodridge, 1 9 L . J .41 5 R.
v. Bolton , 1 Q . B. An son v . Klien .
Amere scin tilla of eviden ce sh ould not be left to the
MALIGE.86 MASTER SERVANT.
gress, and h e breaks it, h e can not be convicted ofma liciously” damag ing property . Coombs v . Butler .
VWter e Defendan t is a tta cked by dogs, an d h e ch ops one
w ith a cutlass h e h a s in h is h an d , it is n ot amaliciousma iming or w oun ding of th e dog . London V . Gonsa lves.
Ma lt L iquor to be drunk on th e premises.
To convict Defen dan t for sellin g w ith out a licen ce itmust be proved th a t h e sold less th an tw o gallons.
D’Abrio V. Straker .
Man a g er of G ra n t
Means an agen t of th e ow ner ; n ot h is servan t. Sw ain
v. Pistano.
Ma n d amus — SeeRULE.
Ma r r ied Woman — See Femme covert.
Ma ster a n d Servan t .
DEFINITION or SERVANT.
A h ea d shopman is n ot a serva n t under 2 of 1853.
Dias v . D’Aguiar .
Ta sk Gang — In th e absen ce of any express eviden ce
to th e con trary, a person employed by a task gangd river , is a servan t of th e d river an d n ot of th e estate.
Gordon V . Parkinso‘
n .
A task gang driver is n ot a servan t un der Ma ster and
Servant Act . Ba scomv. H a z z ard .
An order given by th e driver to an immigran tmust beobeyed, a s t he d river is agen t for th e time being of th eman ager of th e estate. Carruth ers V . Koondan sing .
A capta in of a sloop engaged w ith out any agreementa s to time except th at w ag es w ere agreed to be at $75amon th ”, comes un der S. 1 7 of Employer an d Se rvantAct of 1853. Men donca v . H opkinson .
Aman ager of a gran t is an agen t of th e ow n er, n ot a
servan t of th e ow ner . Sw ain v . Pistan e .
A pan boiler is a servan t un der 2 of 1853. Duke v.
Bury ; Garnett V. Nich olson .
MASTER SERVANT. 87 WHEN LIABLE.
An East India n immigra nt is not amenable to Masterand Servan t O rdinance of 1853. Moon ah v.Agard .
LIABILITY or MASTER.
Alth ough S. 65 of 25 of 1856 applies to cer tain person s on ly, ama stermay un der gen era l principles of lawincur
'
a forfeiture by th e a ct of h is agen t or servant.
Correira V. Man th orp but h e i s not liable for th e act of
th e servan t amoun ting to amisdemeanour . Isaacs V.
Ch apman . Nor is h e liable for quasi crimin al acts of h isservan t . e.g . w h ere there is a fine or imp risonmen t, exceptb express en actmen t. Pistano v. Sw a in (cit . AttorneyGbner a l v. Siddons, 1 C. J. 220 Attorney Gen er a l V.
Burgess, 2 C. J . 493 ; Mullins v. (‘ollinsJ L . R. Q .
‘
B. 292 ; Somerset v. H ar t, 1 2 Q . B. D . 360 ; Redgage v.
Hayn es, 1 Q . B. D. 89 ; Booty v. Da w es, 1 Q. B. D. 784;R. v . Ba w ly, 9 L . T. N . S. 827 ; Sea r ly V . Reynold, 14L. T. 5 18 ; R. v. Barret, L . C. 263 R. v. Stamard ,L. C. 349) an d e.g. a prosecution un der 8 . 32 of Crow nLand O rdin an ce 1873 (cutting sh inges) Sw ain v. Pistane ;neith er is th e employer liable for th e illega l a ct of hismanager un less it is sh ow n th at h e directed th e agent orman ager so to act or rea llymean t th a t h e sh ould so act,or afterw a rds ratified th e illegal act. Ih . (cit . R. V.
Smith,L . C. 607 ; Coop er v. Steele, 6 H . L . C. A.
n eith er is th e holder of a w ood-cutting licence liable
for trespa ss on adjoin ing la n ds, un less it be sh ow n that
tre'
spass w as . don e by th e d irection a n d w ith th e know
ledge of th emaster . Da Silva v. Man n .
Th e ca sua l act or employmen t of anoth er by a seller of
bread does n otmake th e seller liable un der th e 5th S.
of O rdin ance, for a sa le of bread w ith out sca les and
w eigh ts in h is absen ce. Th orn e V . Fr aser ; Th orne V.
Muddle ; as th emaster is n ot liable for a sale by sh ort
Weigh t, un less h e w as presen t at th e sale . Isaacs V.
Ch apman .
WHEN LIABLE.
Absence of a ctua l know ledge of ow ner of ganga Sh op of
sale, is n ot enough for h is exoneration , if the Magistrate
con siders h e h ad con sented to such sale, eith er by a
MASTER SERVANT . ABATEMENT or WAGES.
gen eral order, or permission g iven h is sh opman to tran sgress . th e O rdinance, or in w h atever w ay th e con sent
w as given . Wong-a .Samv. An son as th e absence of
ow ner of th e shop does n ot r elieve h imfromth e r espon si
bility of acts done by person s w h o h ad a ccess to h is sh op,or con trol , or pow er , over th e liquor sold fromh is sh opw h ich h e w as l icen ced to keep. Ferna ndes v. Arnold ;as ' itmust be taken asp rimafa cie evidence th at th e ow n er
of th e shop , or his servan t knew or consen ted to th e sellingof turn on Sun day if it is proved th a t rumw a s called for
,
dra nk, a nd paid for in th e sh op . D’
O liveira V . Bolton ;as it seems strange th a t a serva nt w ith out benefit to
, ,h imself, but for h ismaster ’s benefit, sh ould h ave con
‘f tracted th e liability of disobeying h ismaster ’s orders“h e. n ot to sell . It w a s w ith in th e purvie w of th e
Magistrate to decide upon th e credit due to th e Wit‘
nesses w h o sw ore to th e con tra ry. Sn agg O J . in
Correia V . Man th orp.
Th ema ster is also liable for th e acts of h is servan t
w h en it is proved th at h e h eld th e licen ce an d th at th e
servan t got a par t of th e profit an d slept upstairs of th e
sh op. Cuckow v . Gon sa lves .
LIABILITY OF O WNER WHEN ABSENT FROM THECOLONY.
See ABSENCE.
LIABILITY As EXECUTOR.
Wh ere in formation lays Appellan t’
s liabil ity on th e
groun d of h is bein g th e ow n er of th e goods, as also
employer of th e actual ow n er of th e Sh O p , a s in h is
capa city a s Executor , a n d h e takes exception in limineas Executor th at h e w as n ot o w ner , h e is en titled to a
decision on th e question th us raised indepen den tly of
any particular circumstan ces th at.may h ave tran spiredin eviden ce . Silvan o V . Barne s . Fur th er , see O WNER.
ABATEMENT or WAGES.
Un der 2 of 1 853, S. 1 0, th e forfeituremade payableto th e employer , is a pen alty imposed on th e servant.
Ba scomv . H az z ard .
Wh en ch arg e states A to be the employer, and
MASTER85 SERVANT. 90 REFUSALToENTERSERVICE.
Wh ere servan t is guilty of breach of contract th e Magis
trate is bound to aw ard fin e or imprisonmen t, and h e h asn o auth ority simply to order th at th e w ages sh ould be
forfeited . Dublin v. Gray.
DETERMINATION or CONTRACT. LENGTH or CONTRACT.
Notice of determin a tion of con tract or service sh ould
run for 14days n ext precedin g th e termin ation of th emonth , an d not th at it sh a ll run after termination . Men
don ca v. H opkinson .
Notice given for th e en d of th emon th is n ot invalidatedbecause it h as to run for a lon ger period th an 14days. Ih .
Wh ere a p erson en ters up o n a con tract to w ork on an
estategen era llyand w ith outanycon tract verbal or w ritten ,h is termof service is by la w computed tobe on e ca lendarmon th . Dun da s v. Cauz a . See CONTRACT As ToTIME.
Wh ere con tra ct is a daily h iring, an d th emaster saysto th e servant, if you don
’
t w ish to do th e w ork you
can leave it,”th e servan t is at liberty to take th emaster
a t h is w ord an d leave th e w ork. Sample v. Y oung .
Br ea ch .— Un der 3 of 1 853 w h ich is partly taken from4, Geo .4, c . 34, th e con tract broken by on e party is n ot
d issolved . Moonah v . Aga rd (cit . Esp . Baker , E. 85 B.
696 Unw in v . Clarke, R. B . , I . Q . B. , an d th e
Magistrate can order return to service. Ib.
NEGLECT OF DUTY.
Tomake a w a tchman liable for n eglect of duty w here
good s are stolen , proofmust be given of drunkenn ess,absen ce from, or sleeping a t h is post, or some directeviden ce of a like n ature . Bascomv. Relva . Liabilityof East In dian Immigran t — See IMMIGRANT.Tomake a servan t li able for n eglect of w ork &c. itmust be alleged an d proved th at th e refusal to w ork w as
w ith out reasonable cause . Gordon v. Binn s. Furth er ,see NEGLIGENCE.
REFUSAL TO ENTER SERVICE.
A contract en tered in to according to th emeth od prescribed by 2 oi 1 853 by a labourer w h o is registered
MASTER SERVANT 91
under4of 1887 (Gold Min in g ) is binding , but if enteredon ly under 4of 1887 an d th ere is n o stipulation a s to
w ages in th e con tr act, a lth ough an advan ce is given , a
conviction for refusin g to en ter service is bad . Luckiev. D
’Amil .Itmust be sh ow n th a t th emedicin es an dmedica l reme
dies prescribed under th e Gold Min in g regulation s w ould
be at th e placer at th e time th e labourer w ould h avereach ed h ad h e fulfilled h is con tract, before h e can beconvicted for refusing to en ter service . Ib.
EMBEZZLEMENT.
Wh ere th e stew a rd of a sh ip is en titled to sugar an dbiscuits for h is ow n use, h e is guilty of embez z lemen t ifh e takes fromth e stores sugar an d biscuits of sma ll valueto give to a w oman on board (immig ran t on passagefromIn dia) for illicit in tercourse . Sumn er v. Jon es .
As To CONVICTION FOREMBEZZLEMENT.— See LARCENY .
FRAUD.
A person w h o con tracts to do paalings at somuch a
foot an d receivesmore th a n h e is en titled to, is not liableunder th e Ma ster an d Servan t Act for fraud an d deception , a s it is n o part of h is duty tomeasure th e w orkbefore h e receives paymen t . Marks V . Sh aw . H emaybe ch arged for receivingmon ey under false preten ces. 1b.
LIABILITY UNDER SUNDAY TRADING O RDINANCE.—See
SUNDAY TRADING O RDINANCE.
May .—See WORDS.
Mea t .
Wherefreshmea t is exp osed for sa le in a cart in a rura l
district on a public road w h ere a sort ofmarket isbeing h eld
”an d th e person so exposing h as a licen ce
for a cart for h ire an d a h uckster’
s licen ce h e is a s
occupier a n d is amen able for occupying a place
w h ere fresh mea t is exposed for sa le w ith out law ful
excuse an d did fail to take out a licen ce .
”Burrow es
Joaquim, Furth er , see PLACE; O CCUPIER; HAWKER.
92 NEGLIGENCE.
A Huc'kster
’
s licence d oes not entitle a'
person to Sellfreshmeat o n a public road in a Cart . Burrow es v .
Joaquin } .
Mea sur e — See WEIGHT.
Min dr .
—See AGE O F DEFENDANT.
Wh ere seveiial pa rties Severa lty non /tract to se rve -asg old
diggers an d fa il to performsuch co ntra ct , ea chmust beseve ra l ly ch a rged . et a l . See JOINDERCO NVICTION .
Mistak e .
A par ty ca nn ot set up amistake in law as defen ce .
Moon ah v. Aga rd (Cit . Un w in v . Clarke , L .
M itig a tion .
Court o f Revie w h eld th at th ere w er e circumstan cesun d er w h ich th e sen tenc e of th e Ma g istra temigh t beamend ed , a n d a lte red th e sen ten ce of th e Mag istra te from“ 30
1
d ays’h a rd labour ,
”to $24or 7 days. HelmV.
Rh od ius . Fur th er , see CONVICTION .
Money or RCWa r fl .—See WORDS.
Mon th .— See WORDS.
N ame of ow n er of prop er ty in la rcen y cases.
— Sfee LAJRCENYe
Neg lig en ce .
Que stion le f negligence is ama t‘er '
of fact to be decided
by the Ma gistra te , a n d th e C our t of Review w ill n ot
in terfe re . Gar nett v. Nich o lson . Furth er , see MASTERAND SERVANT.
Wh ere O rd in an cemakes ln eglect to keep th e roads in
good ord er , evid en ce th at roa d w a s an d is in bad order ,”
is n ot sufficien t eviden ce . Evid ence of n eg lectmust begiven . Prin ce v . King .
O BSTRUCTING.
’
94an Obstruction . It is for th e Magistrate to judge w ith
referen ce to th e w ords used an d,th e w h ole circumstances
in any such ca se, w h eth er obstruction w ould reason ably
result fromth e w ords, an d w h eth er in fact it h ad resulted .
1 b Allick V . Joseph .
A ch arge of w ilfully obstructin g a police officer in
th e execution of h is duty, is n ot w ith in th e jurisdictionof th e Magistrate . Allick v . Joseph .
In order th a t a labourer sh ould h ave th e ben efit ofth e pro tec tive clause (S. 1 3SS. 1 of O rdinan ce 3 of 1 884)it sh ould a ppea r th a t h e w as employed or empow ered bya road officer in th e performan ce of some act auth orisedby th e Road O rdin an ce . Murdoch v. An son . Suchauth orisa tion w h en gen era lmust be in w riting . Ib.
A Commissa rymay be obstructed by an act such as a
th reat to h ave h imput O ff a stelling . Sproston v. Cross.
H e n eed n ot be doing a positive act w h en obstructed . Ib.
O BSTRUCTING PEACE O FFICER— See Sup ra ,a lso ASSAULT,
ARREST.
O ccup ier — See WORDS.
O CCUFIEROF BUSINESSPREMISES— See BUSINESSPREMISES.
O ffice : COUNTING H OUSE — See WORDS.
Omission in conviction — See CONVICTION .
O nus
Crow n Lan ds — Seiz ure of good s lies on claimant .Kin gston v . Fraser ; Fraser v . Gon salves ; Sw ain v.
Lopes ; (cit . S. Th e claiman ts Sh ould at leastmakeout a p rimd fa cie case . H arcourt v . Sicla .
Th e vitiumrea le w h ich a tta ch es un der SS. 32 33, tosh ingles, &c .
, cut on Crow n L an ds, is n ot got rid of bymere sa le a n d tran sfer , irrespectively of th e atten dan tcircumstan ces . Sw ain v. Lopes . Furth er— see Crow nLan d s .
Gun s of origima li un der Lees O rdin an ce lies on ow n erof estate . Soph ia v. Th orn e .
95 -O PIUM O RDINANCE.
Guns of sh ow ing th at Defendan t h as a licen ce for a
retail spirit sh O p on a ch arge of h aving rumin h is possession , lies on th e Defen dan t . An son v. Won g
-a-Hoy(cit. Taylor on Eviden ce,Th e eviden ce of rea son able in feren ce th at th e use of a
cart by Defen dan t’
s boy w as by th e in struction of th e
Defen dan t, or don e by virtue of th e employmen t of th e
boy, lies on th e prosecution . Men des v . Layton .
Wh ere ch arge alleges a sa le as a n Ofience, th e con dition
being th e exclusion of ,th e protection or exemption w h ich
a licen ce w ould afiord , th e la w th row s on th e Defen dan t
the proof th a t h e h ad a licen ce w h ereas if th e ch arge is
for n eglecting to take out a licen ce, th e complain an tw ould h ave to prove th e n eglect . Robella v. Birch ;Walcott V. Jeffrey.
O piumO r d in a n ce .
Gun s of proving law ful possession is on th e Defen dan t.
Da Costa v . King:
Th e law regula ting opium, bh an g , &c., proh ibits a sale
by w h olesale dealers O f n ot less th a n 25 lbs . to a retail
dealer, th erefore a sale of 1 0 lbs . opiuman d 1 5 lbs.
bh ang ,makin g a sa le of 25 lbs. of a rticlesmen tion ed inth e O rdin ance, is in con traven tion of th e O rdin ance .
Sw ain v . Fresson .
O piumis liable to seiz ure if it is kept for a licen ced
customer by a person not licen ced . Da Costa v. King .
ENTRY IN BOOK .
If Magistrate is of opin ion th at en try in Book is
incorrect, but not fictitious w ith in ten tion of breaking
th e law , h e is righ t in dismissing ch arge . Sw ain v.
Fong-a-pan .
Th e dealer n eed n otmake entry in th e book at th e
time of receipt of opium; h e h as up to th e close of th at
day formaking such entry. Goolamally v. Dorn ford .
Th e keeping of a book by a dealer under O rdin an ce 26
of 1880,S. 7, does not'
exon erate th e dea ler fromkeepinga book under O rd . 22 of 1861, S.
,
5 . Seth y . Anderson .
0 1mmO RDINANOE 96
Th e ow n er is n ot boun d to open h is sh op a t a ll timesfen th e purpose of h is books bein g in spected if h is ord ina ry busin ess does n ot -require his sh op being so Opened .
Groolomally v . An derson .
Wh ere opiumis seiz ed a s liable to forf eiture a nd is
brough t before th e Magist ra te a lon g w ith th e person in
w h ose possession it w a s foun d , th e Magistra te h a s jurdiction to adjudica te, w h atever w ere th e circumstan cesof th e seiz ure . Win -Samv . Fra ser ; (cit . R. v . Hugh es,L . B .
,4, Q . B. D. ,
Con struction .— Section s 1442 of O rdin an ce of 1889 ,
a re to be construed togeth er . Layton v . Roh eim.Possession — Wh e re Opiumis obta in ed by
- or on beh alf
of f a licenced dea ler , an d n ot obtain ed fromth e BondedWareh ouse as required by law ,
th ere is a O ituimrea leattach ing to it so long a t least a s it is h eld by th e dea leror h is agen t, an d th e possession by th e agen t w ould be
no an sw er to th e ch a rge of h aving in h is possession
illegally a certa in quan tity of O pium. Wi n-Samv.
Fraser ; cit . 22 of 1 861 , S.S. 1 1 , 14; Tax O rd inanc e
1879, S. 1 6 .
Sa le — Themere sa le of O piumby reta il , except in
specified quan tities , is illeg a l , a nd th e purch ase of Opiumof a larger qua n tity th an th at permitted , is a lso illegal .Ellipe v . Bur row es.
O pp OSition .
En try'
of opposition un der Gold Min ing Regula tion smay bemade by a Barrister, Solicitor , o r duly auth orised
Attorn ey, or duly auth orisedAg en t . McKinn on v. Stoby.
O r d in an ce .
An O rdinance imposing tax an d import duties for sa lean d licen ce of certain goods, does n ot repeal the O rdinance th eretofore passed regulating the sale, and obligation s a rising fromsale, an d pen alties of, such , ggads.
Shin g-a-Lee v . Birch .
O w ner .
Th e ow n er in relation to immovable property is th e
PARTNER.98 PENALTY.
O n e partn ermay be proceeded again st singly for
sellin g rumif th e firmw a s in ar rears of licen ce dues.
Quin ta v . Sw ain .
Service on par tn ers— see SUMMONS.
Laying property in ch arge— See LARCENY.
Pea ce O fl icer , assaultin g— See ASSAULT.
Pea ce , br ea ch of .-See SECURITY.
Ped la r .— See HAWKER.
Pen a lty .
Wh ere disobedien ce of a law makes a person liable
to a pen a lty, th is is sufficien t to con stitute a criminalmatter . Da lgleish v. Kin g (cit. Millar v . Den h wm, L .R5,
469, Br amw ell, J.) Furth er , see CRIMINAL
MATTER.
Pen a lties a re to be r ecovered under 8 of 1877, SS.4344. De Souz a v . An son (cit . for appellan t an d h eld n ot
applicable , 8 of 1 880 , S.
Wh ere th e O rdin an ce un d er w h ich a ch arge for failure
to take out a licen ce is brough t provides n o pen alty, th e
pen a lty is imposed an d proceeded for un der 39 of 1875 ,S. 2. Ma rtin v . Burrow es .
Wh ere th e law imposes.a pen alty an d a certain sum
due for a licen ce to be paid (8 of 1880) th e Magistrate
can n ot aw ard a pen alty an d order th at a licen ce be taken
out . Moon ie v . Dorn ford .
Magistrate’
s decision amen ded and appellant con
demn ed by Review Cour t to pay a pen al ty an d costs
w ith in th ree days after decision . Mag istrate ordered to
r ectify con viction un der 20 of 1 860 . Rodn eyv . Sampson .
Wh ere th e law imposes a pen a lty betw een $1 00 and
$500 , th e Magistrate h a s n o auth ority to impose a low er
pen a lty th an $1 00 . Kin g v . Gomes (cit . It. v . Solomon s,1,T.E. , 249 ; Wh iteh ea d v . Regin a , 7 , QB . an d
w h ere th is is don e th e Court w ill remit to th eMagistrate
t ) impose th e lega l pen alty. Ib Cuckow v. Nascimen to.
Idem, if pen alty is of a specific amount . Cuckow v.
Nascimen to.
PENALTY. 99
Penaltiesmay be d ispen sed w ith un der Petty O ffencesO rdinan ce, an d impr isonmen t a w arded w ith out th e Optionof a fin e. Y ounge v. Maule .
Fur th er on th is h ead, see HARD LABOUR.
Pla ce— See WORDS.
Pla n ta in s .
A ch arge of stealin g plan tain s is on e O f simplelarceny, an d flogging w ill n ot lie . Ferreira v . McIn roy.
To order flogging , th e ch arg emust be for stea lin gg row in g plan tain s, th at is to say plan tain s grow in g
on lands . Ib. Clair v . Men don ca ; Dick v . Bunbury.
PLANTAIN SUOKERs.
Wh ere th e season’
s crop h a s been reaped an d n o n ew
suckers plan ted , but th e old suckers a llow ed to rema in ,
an d no cultiva tion h as been applied to th em, th ey a re n ot
an in dustrial crop, an d th erefore n ot w ith in th e scope ofO rdin a n ce 27 of 1 880 a s g row in g crops . Ew in g EstateCO . v . Seals ; con tra , if cultiva tion h as been bestow ed onth em. Io.
— See GROWING CROP.
PLANTAIN WALK .
Larceny froma plan tain w alk does n ot come w ith in
O rdin ance 22 of 1 862, S.S. 31 , 32. To.
Plea .—7STATUTORY CAUTION.
Before a Magistra te en ters in to a ch arg e h emust stateth e substance of th e in formation to th e Defen dan t a nd
ask h imin th e w ords O f th e O rdinan ce if h e h ad a nything to Offer or say, 85 0 . Popplew el l v . Barn es Ford
v. Small ; Roch a v. D’
O rnellas ; H en riques v. An son ;but it is sufficien t th at t he Cour t be judicia lly sa tisfied
th at th e statutory caution w a s put‘ an d th emin ute of th eMagistra te sta tutory question put ,
”an d th e plea n ot
guilty,”is sufficien t . Porter v. Burrow es ; butit w ould
be better if th e Magistrate h adminuted question put
as provided by S. 20 of O rdin an ce 1 9 of Ib.
PLEA'
or GUILTY .
A plea of g uilty does n ot supply imperfect descriptionof prior conviction s. Jugran ee v. Rose.
1 00 Pon ce .
Aplea of guilty to an in formation w hich ch a rges no
Offen ce a t law is inoperative . Stew art v . Horton .
A plea of guilty to an in forma l ch arge is n ot to becon sidered a plea, or th at Defen dant is boun d by h is
admission ,un less it is sh ow n th at w h en th e plea w as
given Defen dan t knew an d un derstood th e nature of the
offen ce w ith w h ich h e w as charged . Budal v. McLean .
UALIFIED PLEAs.
Aplea of guilty to a ch arge of w ilful indolence, andth a t Defend an t h ad sores but d id n ot go to the hos~
pital,”is one of n ot guilty. fl oatay v, Field .
Idemto ch arge for being absen t fromw ork w ithoutleave, w ith th e a ddition th a t Defendan t stated I did not'5 go , I sat dow n, I did n ot go to is not anunqua lified plea of guilty . GhastityIdemto ch arge of assault I did give complainan t a.blow . Luckput y. Neh or e .
Idemto ch arge gf h aying ,
rumon business premisesth at rumw as in bed-room.” Caddel v. Burrow es.Idemto ch arge of t radin as a h a w ker w ithout a
licen cemean s th at h e did 0 er to sell in th emannermen tion ed in th e O rdin ance , and th at h e h ad n o licencefor sellin g th ereof ; but it does n ot go so far as a plea of
guilty th at h e is a h aw ker in termof th e law . VanBrook v. King ; (cit . Roe . v . Little, 1 Burn , 610, 2 Ld .,
Ray,
PLEA or NOTGUILTY.
Aplea of not guil ty puts prosecution upon lega l proofnot on ly of th e a lleged qfien ee in substance, but of anycircumstance w h ithmay a ssist in leading up to conviction . Warren v . Pereira .
In bastardy cases a plea of, not guilty puts the
plaina n t on proof th at th emoth er of the ch ild is a singleWoman . Green v. Tait;
Police .
Th e disciplinary ttial by his superior officer of a poligeman formiscon duct, sect ion of th e O rdin ance which
Poo} ; LAW,1 02 CONVICTION, &0.
th e w ife so th at sh emay become destitute . Sample v.
Williams, O rd . 6, 1 855 , Sec . 36 ; (cit. R. v. MaidstoneUnion , L E. 5 , QB . 31 ; R. v. O ookh amUn ion , LB . 9,
Q.E.D. 529 F lan agan v. O verseer of th ep oor of BishopsWea rmouth , 27, L .J. ,
M.C 46, cit . for th e Defen dant).To con stitute desertion th eremust be eviden ce th at
th e w ife expressed h er w illin gness to resume co-h abita
tion , or th at th e h usban d refused to receive h er , or byh ismisconduct ren dered h er return an impossibilitKing v. Ross ; a s th e test of desertion is not w h eth er t e
h usban d h as w ilfully refused”tomain tain h is w ife ;
Sample v. Williams ; and th ere is n o law w h ich renders
it compulsory in a h usban d to support h is w ife if, h e
h aving a h ome for h er , sh e elects to remain aw ay, and it
is n ot incumben t on h imto w rite to h er to return .
King v. Ross .
Poverty is n o excuse again stmaking an order enforc
ing a previous ordermade in affiliation . Todd v. Ch ester .
CONVICTION— FORM or . AWARDING HARD LABOUR.
Un der a n afiiliation order a gen era l order of distress
or of imprisonment in default of distress is bad ; th e
order sh ould be forma lly draw n up con tain ing adjudication th a t th e Defendan t is th e putative fath er of th e
ch ild an d an order on h imto pay th emoth er of th e ch ildso lon g as sh e lives an d is of soun dmin d and sh all not
be in any prison , or th e person w h omay be appointed toh ave th e custody of th e ch ild a w eekly sumto be th enn amed un til such ch ild sh all h ave a ttain ed th e age of 14year s or sh ould die, or th emoth er sh ouldmarry, w ithsuch order as to costs an d oth er in cidental expen ses as
to th e Justice sh all seemmeet ; th e order sh ould be
formally draw n up an d a copy served on th e Defen dan t,a nd if such order is disobeyed for th e space of amonth ,th emoth ermay apply for an order again st h im, verifying h er complain t or information upon oath , w h en th e
Justice sh all issue h is w a rran t for th e a preh ension of
th e Defen dan t to be brough t before th eSpecial Justiceto be dealt w ith accordin g to law . O n th e Defen dant
being brough t an d a lleging n o sufficient reason for n on
compliance w ith th e order , th e Magistratemay issue a
‘UL Iv u
POORLAW. 1 03 POSTPORE’MIiii’i’fLAW Lln h 'A
distress for th e arrears un der th e affiliation order , n
r
btexceeding th e amoun t due for 1 2mon th s an d if th eDefendan t h as n o goods an d ch attels upon w h ich a
distress can be levied , th en a w ar ran t of commitmen tmay be issued ; but itmust be born e inmin d th at in asmuch a s th e O rdinance provides th at n otmore th an 1 2w eeks arrears are to be recovered in disch a rge of th e
Wh ole debt, th emoth er to keep a live h er claimforarrears un der th e order sh ould apply for a fresh w a rran t
as each 1 2 w eeks expire With out paymen t . De Cambrav. Ben ; Macedo v. An th ony . In H a ly v. Baird , S. S.
C. w h ere th e Magistrate orderedmore th an 1 2 w eeks
paymen t (an d in default H aly w as imprison ed) sen ten cefor $300 w a s given in an action again st th e Magistratefor fa lse imprisonmen t .
Possession .
O n a ch arge of suSpiciouS possession all th at it is
n ecessary to en sure conviction un der O rdin ance 20 of
1856 S. 2 p . 6 is a rea son able suspicion th at th e th ingfoun d in th e possession of th e pa rty accused h ad been
stolen or un law fully obtain ed , coupled w ith a fa ilure to
accoun t for th e same to th e satisfaction of th e Magistrate .
Adams v. Mayers (cit . in re Booth royd , 1 5 M. St W.
POSSESSION OF GROWING CROP.- See LARCENY .
Postpon emen t .
A summon s w as served at 3 pm. on 1 1 th Septemberon Defen dan t to appea r on 1 3th September a t 1 1 am.
Defen dan t applied for postpon emen t . Th e Magistrate
said h e w oul d take th e eviden ce for th e prosecution a n d
see . H e adjudicated . Review Court h eld th at h e sh ouldh ave postpon ed , an d referr ed case ba ck to h imto h earth e eviden ce for defen ce, Defenda n t being at liberty to
summon w itn esses. D’An drade v . L ang .
A summon s served on Defen dan t on e day to appear
n ext day is n ot rea son able as to time. Daniel v. Ridley.
Wh ilst a Defen dant Sh ould h ave a ll n ecessary fa cilities
for obtain ing w itnesses an d pos tponemen t if n ecessary
POSTPONEMENT . 104 POUND.
for th at purpose , n eedless postpon emen ts on th e con traryough t to be discouraged , a n d before a Defen dant can
complain w ith any effect of n ot h aving been g ranted a
postpon emen t , it lies on h imto Sh ow th at h is application
w asmade in good faith , an d th at th ere w as at least
some fea sible rea son for it . Gon sa lves v . Fox .
Th e fact th at Defen dan t did n ot ask for a postponemen t w h en ca se w a s called , does n ot debar h imfromapplyin g after ca se for th e prosecution is closed . Daniel
v. Rid ley ; (cit . R. v . Ston e, 1 East,Postpon emen t is in th e discretion of th e Magistrate
an d it lies on th e party applying to satisfy th e Magistrate th a t th e postpon emen t w a s of Impor tan ce to h im,an d w a s rea son able . Kollychurn v . Kin g ; Daniel v.
Ridley ; Sew kisson v. Gill ; Etad al ly v . Salmon .
Apostpon emen t is a llow able in order to en able th e
Defen dan t to compen sate Plain tifi on a ch arge of cruellymaltreating amule . Kollychurn v. King .
A party h as n o righ t to h ave h is case postpon ed or
taken out of its tur n in order th a t Counsel or Attorneymay attend on h is beh a lf. Kh odobaccus v . Ja n oosing .
As a rule complain an t sh ould be prepared w ith then ecessary evidence, or sh ould apply to th eMagistratefora postpon ement, a nd n ot to w a it un til decision , and claimreview on th e statemen t of addition a l facts . Bascomv.
Norton .
Poun d .
Man ager of estate is f auth orised to sen d cattle to th e
poun d a s strays, so is th e overseer of th e estate w h en
auth orised by th eman ager . Blank v . Mulligan ; and
a lth ough h emay be liable civilly, h e is n ot liable for a
crimin a l offen ce . Ib.
Un der S. 1 0,it is n ot obligatory th at a stray taken up
after sun set sh all be actually delivered to th e poun d
keeper before 8 o’
clock on th e follow ing day. It is
sufficien t if it be sen t fromth e place of its arrest before
8 o’
clock, alth ough it does n ot r each th e poun d until
Win ter v. H asting s .
Apig un der th e d irect con trol of ow n er is n ot a stray.
De Souz a v. Roach .
POUND.1 06 ILLEGAL IMPOUNDING’.
to th e poun d ; h is n amemust appear in th e w ritten
auth or ity . An auth ority to take to th e poun d is al w ays
n ecessary. O n e in w h ich it is stated th at th e poun d
keeper is to receive”
such stray an d th ere is n oth ingto sh ow th at th e taker is auth or ised to take
”to th e
poun d is bad an d Defen dan t ca nn otif h e rescues, be con
victed . Practice of th e In ferior Cr imma l Court an d
th e ca ses decided th erein .
ILLEGAL IMPOUNDING .
Is n ot a crimin a lmatter . Blank v . Mulligan ; Williams v . Doug las . Tomake it a crimin a lmatter th ean imalsmust be d riven fromth e premises of w h ich th e
taker is n ot th e occupier or ow n er w ith a view ofmakingit a stray. Blank v . Mulligan .
Wh ere stray is caugh t in a buria l groun d of a countrych urch an d t h e Rector” sen d s it to th e poun d it is not
a n illeg a l 1mpoun din g . Wickh amv. Bury (in th is caseth e Magistra te h eld th at th e Rector could n ot act for th e
vestry a n d th a t th e vestry h ad ch arge of th e lan d , and
w a s a corpora te body) .Tomake an a n imal a stray itmust be seiz ed on th e
la nd w h e re it trespa ssed if it goes off th e la n d , even if
it h a s been r ecovered , it ca n not be re-taken . Glasgow
V . H ardeen (cit. Lon don v . Hoop er , 1 C.414,('
omyn sd ig . a rt. d istress) . Even if it h ad been caugh t and h ad
got aw ay. 16.
If th e Magistra te believes th a t th e Defen dan t w en t
to th e Prosecutor’
s pen an d impoun ded th e same ca ttle
w h ich h ad strayed on h is lan d in con sequen ce of supposing , a lth ough erron eously, th at h e h ad a righ t to do
so , t h ere w ould be groun d s to n ega tive th e inten t ofmaking th e an ima ls strays a n d acquit th e Defen dant ofth e crimin a l ch a rge , th ough it d oes n ot sa tisfy th e
impoun d ing . Dougla s v, H ardeen .
Wh e re th e d efen ce w a s th at th e impoun ding w as in
pursuan ce of a righ t, an d th e Magistra te convicted , th e
Court reca lled th e con viction of th e Magistra te on th e
co ndition th a t th e Defen dan t paid th e expen se of Complainan t for poun d fees an d th e prosecutor in th e Court
below .
POUND. 1 07 SHOOTING SWINE, &0 .
It is n ot every un la w ful impoun d ing w h ichmakes th eOffen ce of illeg al impoun ding . Ib. Th eremust be th eintent . Ih . An d th e taking of th e cattlemust be w ithth e in ten t tomake th emstrays . Pemberton v. James .
Th e ch argemust say th at th e cattle w ere takenfromth e lan d
,n ot on th e lan d . l b.
Wh ere a public road run s th r ough a pasture, cattlecrossing th at public road a re n ot strays . Samuel v. Bobb .
RECOVERY or PENALTY .
Wh ere th e sums ad judicated to be paid by th eMagistrate un der th e O rdin an ce on a ch arge of illega limpounding amoun t tomore th a n $24, th e Small Pen a lties O rdin an ce 1 868 does n ot apply, an d th e sums sh ouldbe r ecovered by d istr ess in th e first in sta n ce, an d n ot byimprisonmen t w ith out previous w ar ran t of distress .
Wills v. Tebbutt .
SH OOTING SWINE, & 0 .
Un der a ch arge of killing sw ine,it w a s conten ded
th a t un der O rdin an ce of 9th December 1 796, th e o w ner
of g roun d on w h ich sw in e trespa ssed , w a s a t liberty tosh oot same a fter g ivin g n otice tw ice to th e ow ner , an dit w as urged th at in effect th e act w as repea led by7 of 1 666 S. 6 a nd if n ot repea led , th e Mag istra tew ould h ave n o jurisdiction over th e complain t un der th eO rdin an ce of 1 796. H eld , th a t th e killin g of sw in e w as
punish able un der 2 1 of 1 862 S. 37, an d supposing w ith
out admitting th at th e act of th e Defen dan t could be
pun ish ed as ama licious in jury to property under th e,
Petty O ffen ces O rdin an ce 20 of 1 85 6 S. 2 p. 7 , th eanima l killed w a s va lued a t $20 w h ich w as beyon d th e
jurisdiction of th e Magistra te. If th e Defen da nt could
h ave invoked th e summary jur isdiction of th e Mag istra te
under th e Petty Damage O rdinan ce 23 of 1 861 th e pro
ceedings w ere n ot under th is O rdinance, an d th e appea l
w ould be to th e In ferior Civil Cour t a nd n ot to th e
Review Court . Th e Magistrate w a s n ot th erefore
auth orised to exercise summary jurisdiction .
' Boodh a
v. Rugh on .
Wh ere ‘
a pig is tied an d kept un der supervmon of th e
0 2
POUND,1 08 PRO OLAMATION.
ow n er an d is killed by order of ow n er of premises, it isun la w fully killed w lu
'
lst so tied but if th e person so
killing a cts in good faith un der h is auth or iz ation to kill ,
believin g th at th e ow n er of th e premises h ad th e righ t to
give such order , it w ould be somew h a tmore th an a
colourable excuse an d sufficien t to excludemalice. De
Souz a v. Roach .
Un der th e proclama tion of 9th December 1 796, a
party is boun d to give specia l n otice of trespass tw ice to
th e ow ner of goats before h e is free to sh oot or kill such
goats. Bunburyv. Steph en ; 7 of 1 866 ; Ferreira v.Anaran .
Prescr ip tion .
H eld in a case in review under Crow n Lan d O rdinan ce
th a t “ it seems a lso a s if th e limitation of time in th eSummary Jurisdiction O rdin an ce en ded a s far as it
touch es th e Crow n by 3 1 Elie. C. I . S. Dow v.
Ch almers .
Th e property of th e Crow n is not divested by non
claimw ith in th e period of sixmon th s. Braceyv. McTurk.
Previous Conviction .
Wh ere it is in ten ded to proceed a s for a secon d Offenceun der 7 of 1 873, n otice sh ould be g iven to Defendan t bya llegin g th e previous conviction in th e ch arge and prov
in g th e same . Mooran dumv. La Roch e ; Soomaria V.
Hun ter ; Rootay v. Field ; Neemur v . Mavor .
Wh ere th e record book of th e district is produced byth e Clerk to th e Magistra te , sh ow in g previous conviction
of in dolen ce”,th is is n ot suflicien t to prove previous
conviction of w ilful in dolen ce durin g w orkin g h ours.
”
Jugr an ee v. Rose alth ough th e formal con viction ismadeup for w ilful indolen ce dur ing w orkin g h ours .
”Ib.
Previous conviction ca nn ot be proved orally ; itmustbe proved by th e record book or by th e record . Seerogeev. Th omson (cit . Cakes Mag . Sym, 1 0 Ed .
Proclama tion .
O f a n ew fiscal district is not of such a n ature as to be
judicia lly n oticed . Cabra l V. Y ounge .
PR0sECUTOR. 1 10 RAILWAY.
is n ot lodged in th e n ame of th e Attorn ey Gen eral , th ech argemust be sig ned by th e Comptroller or sub Comp,
troller of Customs . H oh enkerk v. Royen .
Larceny.— Wh ere ch a rge of th eft of estate
’
s propertyis laid an d sign ed by th e h ead overseer , itmust be takenth a t th e Man ager is th e rea l prosecutor . Fong
-a-ling v .
Ch an d ler , cit O rdinan ce 1 9 of 1 856. Con tra in Wh itev. Martin , w h ere it w as h eld th at w h ere th e ch arge is
sign ed by th e overseer itmust be taken th at th e overseer isth e prosecutor a n d is n otmerely th e agen t of th eman ager .
In a case O f larceny of burn t earth fromland of Ainch arge of B, B can n ot bring ch arg e . Saunders v.
Douglas . Amust brin g ch arge . Ih .
Dea th of Prosecutor .—Wh ere ch arge un der Immigra
tion O rdin an ce is sign ed by th eman ager , a nd th eman agerdies th e ch arge is not abated . Persaud v. Ch ristie.
Con tra , if it be a common in former suin g for a pena lty. Ib.
Attorn ey Gen er a l .— Wh ere O rdin an ce en acts th at for
a n offen ce, th e offen der sh a ll be liable on conviction to a
fin e, an d such fin emay be sued for , prosecuted and
recovered on summa ry conviction by th eAttorn ey Genera l
,th e in formation n eed n ot be la id in th e n ame of the
Attorn ey Gen eral , as it is an offen ce aga in st public Policy
(h a rborin g Immig ran ts w ith out pa sspor ts w ith in ten t to
car ry th emout O f th e Colony is an Offence again st public
policy.) Cox v . Ba scom.Pub lic En ter ta inmen t
Th e w ords oth er public en tertainmen ts mean public en tertainmen ts h aving someth in g of th e ch aracter of a
dan cing , sing in g , or th ea trica l en ter tainmen t, an d not to
religious;
ormoral in struction s in ch urch or ch apel dedi
cated to religious w orsh ip or devotion al purposes . Gib
bons v . Straker.A pe rson is n ot liable for a ssault for putting out
an oth er froma th ea tre , &c .,
a t th e in stan ce of th e
en tertain er if h e does n ot usemore force th an w asmecessary. Gray v. Sw ain .
Ra ilw ay .
Aticket covering a journ ey in th e train fromMah aica
RAiLWAY. 1 1 1 REASONS OF REVIEW.
to Vigilan ce covers a journey in th e train betw een tw oin termediate station s betw een Mah aica an d Vigilan ce.
Sumn er v . Railw ay CO . (cit . R. v. Fr ere,4E. B . 598,24,
Rea son s ofReview .
Reaso ns not sta ted — It is for th e Court to look at th e
w h ole record in depen den tly of th e reason s of appea l
w h ichmay be sta ted by Appellan t . Gon salves V . L ayton ; but it can n ot amplify in favour of Appellan t th eground of appea l. H in d s v . Lovell ; itmust decide on
th e papers Wh ere Appellan t does n ot appear . Silva n o v.
Wade, th e Court being boun d to n otice apparen t defects
in th e proceedin gs brough t un der review an d a ct on th e
same even w h en n ot brough t specifica lly by Appellan t’s
reason s. Van Ba ttenburg v . Burn h am.It is th e duty of th e Court to take n otice or cogn iz an ce
of w h at is essen tia l to th e rig h t an d law ful decision of
th e question s raised by th e record w h eth er adverted to
in th e argumen ts of pa rties or n ot. Warren v. Pereira
(cit. O rdin an ce 22 of 1 868, S. an d if th e reason s are
not applicable to th e case , th e Court is n ot precluded
fromtakin g n otice of a ny error appa ren t on th e r ecord .
Zitman v. Backer (see AMENDMENT) .Th e Review Cour t does n ot admit of discussion of
oth er objection s th an are n otified to th e Respon den t byth e reasons . Pereira V . Davis th e Appellant being con
fined by h is reason s . Rodrigues v. Pereira .
SIGNING .
Notice O f Opposition an d reason s of r eview must besigned by th e party applying or by h is Coun sel or Sol
icitor ,
or appeal w ill be dismissed . Correia v. An son Goolamally v . Dorn ford . Th e receipt of r eason s n ot Signed
is a w aiver of any objection or irregular ity as to th e
irregularity for n on -sign ing . Ragabon e v. Green slade .
Neith er party can w aive w an t of proper notice . Goolamally v. Dorn ford ; th e Court ofReview bein g boun d to
take notice of such defect, tb. Th e same remark applies
to th e n on -sign ing of copy of th e proceedings before th e
Magistrate. De Freitas v. Ferreir a ; Joh n son v. Jack.
REASONSor REVIEW. 1 12 EVIDENCE.
GENERAL ISSUE.
A gen eral den ia l of guilt w ith out alleging specificmiscar riage of justice w h en th e Magistrate h as come toa differen t con clusion does not en title th e Appellant toh ave th e case reh eard by th e Court ofReview . Stragh an
v . Coxall .
A plea of gen eral den ial is bad . Garnett v. Dean ;
Goolamally v . Dorn ford Hutson v. RosO n . Th e reasonssh ould sh ow in w h at respect th e decision is erroneous,n otmerely th a t “
th e decision is erron eous in law .
”
Day v . Teixeira ; Sew bole v . Muller ; H icken v . Green
slade ; Scan tlebury V . Green ; Silvan o v. Wade.
Aplea of n ot guilty is in ept and th e Court of Reviewh as n o jurisdiction to adjudica te on th e general issue.
Goolamally V . Dorn ford .
REASONSor MAGISTRATE.
Not alw ays desirable . Ferreira v . Wigh t .Reason s of Magistrate dismissing a case, S. 19 of
O rdin an ce 1 9 of 1 856 n ot n ecessary w h en h e dismissesa case onmerits. Sw ain v . Pistan o . Th ey are n ecessaryWh en h e dismisses a ca se n ot on th emerits . 1b.
Th e Magistrate is n ot bound to give r eason s w h en h e
dismisses a case . Lovell v . Pistan o, (cit . for Appellantand h eld not applicable 5 of 1868 S. n or is h e boun d
to give rea son s w h en h e uph olds or d ismisses a claimforseiz ure of goods un der Crow n Lan ds O rdin an ce . Fer
reira v . Wigh t. If h e gives reason s h e is n ot bound to
for w ard th emto th e Court . H ill v. Klien .
Wh en th e rea son s of th e Magistrate a re delivered in
th e Court below an dmade kn ow n a t th e time th eymaybe forw arded to th e Review Court . Gray v. Kh odoboc
cus. Cit. Brow n v. Ga gy, 2 M. P. C. N. S. 341 .
As TO EVIDENCE.
Wh ere Magistrate admitted illegal eviden ce, but rejected th e claimfor return of goods seiz ed un der Crow n
Lan ds O rdinan ce on th e g roun d th at th e claimant h adfailed to prove legal ow nersh ip, an d such illegal evidence
REASONS OF REVIEW. 1 14 RECEIVING.
appea l on beh a lf of a n immigrant , but w her e the Immigra .
tion Agen I.Gen era l in suin g for a pen a lty un der O rd inanceS 84, th e time is limited to 1 0 days, a n d if h e gives
verba l n otice of appeal a t th e time of th e conviction , and
such r ea son s a re un ten able , th e time a llow ed for appeal
w ill coun t fromth e decision to th e filin g of w ritten reason s .
Immig ra tion Agen t Gen era l V . Sh eild s .
SERVICE.
May bemade bymean s of reg istered letter under S.
25 , of O rd in an ce 7 of 1880 , but if th e last day for ser
vice is ou th e4th Februa ry, a n d th e r ea son s w ere[posted
by registered letter on4th Feb ruary, th eremust be evi
den ce to sh ow th a t th ey w ould be deliver ed in th e
ord in a ry cour se of post on4t h Februa ry, a s is requiredby th e terms of th e en actmen t . Poudar smg V . Coyle
A n otice of review is n ot sufficien t, th e servicemustbe of r ea son s of review . King ston v . K
Due service of a pplica tion an d reason s a statu
tory con dition of th e appea l can not be w aived . Poudarsin g v . Coyle .
Th e Court direct ed th e applican t for review to g ive
d ue n otice to th e respon den t in w ritin g of th e in ten tion
to brin g in r eview th e decision of th e Magistrate:
O uckama v . LongAffidavit of servicemust be sw o rn to before a Commission er of affid avits a nd n ot before a Justice of th e
Pea ce . Kin g V . Gomes .
All service of n otices of review must be proved bya ffidavit fromt h is time . Str ag h an v . Ch apma n .
Fi oma refusa l to con t n o appea l lies . Ma ssiah v.
Pcertun sin g .
WAIVER OF REASONS.— SEEWAIVER.
Receivin g Stolen Prop er ty .
O n ch arge fo r receiving w h ere th ere is evidence that
th e goods w ere in th e physica l con trol an d disposition of
th e Defendan t, th e Mag istra te ough t to convict if he
believes such eviden ce . Da Silva v . Wrigh t .
RmébRD BOOK. 1 1 5
Recor d Bonk — O rdinan ce 1 9 of 1 85 6, S. 19 .
Should con tain in fo rma tion sufficien tly full and expl icitto afio rdmater ia l for th e determin a tion of any question
’
raised in review w ith r egard to th e sufficiency or oth er
w ise r ot'
th e ground s o f refusa l to try th e ca se by th e
Magistrate . Wrigh t v Garn ett . Itmust con tain a ll
th e en tries r equired”
by th e O rdinan ce. Kor rimboccusv. Mavor ; Da w son v . Gon salves .
Referen ce to Ma g istr a te .
Un der 1 9 of 1856, S 30, th e Cour t of Review h a s th e
pow er to refer a case back to th e Magistra te for h imtoregsummon the Defen dan t an d inflict a pen alty . G reen
Slade v. Figueira ; a lso to con demn th e Defen dan t to paypouhdage , r etur n cattle impoun ded , an d costs . Samuelv . Bob.
Wh ere such r eferen ce—
takes pla ce t heMag istrate sh ould
re-h ea r the ca se an d refer th e pap ers and th e fresh
eviden ce to the Review Cour t an d n ot adjudicate h imself.Da Silva v . Cor reira . See RE-HEARING .
Refusa l O f M a g istr a te to en ter tain a prelimina rypoin t or issue ch a rge
— See RULE.
IdemSummon s — See SUMMONS; DISCRETIO N .
Reg ister of Immig r a n ts — See EVIDENCE.
Reh ea r in g .
An order Referrin g a ca se to t h e Magistrate w ith
opin ion of th e Court th a t th e Mag istra te oug h t to have
con victed ,is n ot a rule, of Court (27 of 1 847 h‘. 1 n ot in
poin t) ; it is for th e Appella nt to d ecid e w h eth er h ew ould go ba ck to the Mag istra te for h imto reh ear th e
case . If th e Magistr ate w h o tried th e case is absen t or
is out of th e colony, th e Mag istra te before w h omapplication ismademust re-try'
the w h ole caseoand n o t take th e
same fromth e poin t left by th e decid ing Magistra te.
De Freita s v . McAlliste r:
The Court of Review in cases n ot in d ictable, can or der
a treh earing . De Souz a v . Sw ain ; De Faria v. Sw ain ;P 2
REHEARING. 1 1 6
James v. Telford ; Stew art v. London . In Porter v.
Suramai th e proceeding s w ere referred back to th e
Magistrate for h imto take th e evidence alleged
been Offered in th e Court below and refused by th e
Magistrate. See REFERENCE.
It is a question for th e Court’
s discretion w h eth er in
any case proceedings ea facte regular sh ould be disturbed .
Win ter v. Robertson .
Removing Rum.— O rdinance 14of 1855 .A removal fromon e place to anoth er in the colony is
not a. removal froma foreign port to th e colony. Prince
v. Green slade .
Every person , even th e porter w h o removesmmisliable for th e removal of rumun der 14of 1856, S. 37.
Quash ie v. Cuckow .
Repea l .
Wh ere a later O rdinan ce imposes amilder penalty forth e same Offence for w h ich a h eavier penalty is imposedby a former O rdinan ce, th e latter O rdinance repeals th eformer one by implication . Bunbury v.Steph en .
Reta il Spirit Sh O p .
Th e O rdinance does n ot provide for closing a rumshopor tavern at or aftermidn igh t w h en person s are in it
beforemidnigh t. Desilva v . Hill .
GAMING iN.— See GAMING .
SELLINGRUM ONSUNDAY.— SeeSUNDAYTRADING O RDINANCE.
PROOF OF LICENCE— See EVIDENCE.
RUM FOUND IN.— See BUSINESSPREMISES.
UNJUST MEASURE iN.— See WEIGHT.
Retrospective.
A licence is not retrospective. Capella v. Greaves.
(Cit. Campbell v. Strangew ays, L .R. C. P.D
Rice .
Under O rdinan ce 9 of 1873, S. 23, a conviction for removing rice fromCrow n lan ds w ill not lie. Dayv. Jossida .
ROADSAND BRIDGES. 1 118
WHAT ISAPUBLICROAD
In ca ses w h ere th e proprietor is summon ed under
road O rdin an ce, it is n ot for th e Magistrate to determineor say w h eth er th e estate is a sug a r esta te or n o, it is
th e perog ative of th e Govern or a n d Court of Policy. Solong as th e public road of th e esta te ismain tain ed fromth e public fun ds, th a t fa ct is th e Immedia te con dition of
th e existen ce of th e pow ers of th e road O fiicer by theO rdin ance . Murdoch v . An son .
REPAIRS.
For neg lecting to repair roads, itmust be sh ow n on
th e fa ce of th e proceeding s th at th e defen dan t is th e
ow n er of th e pla n tation . Colvin v . Leacock; an d for
n eglecting to repa ir bridge kept up a t th e joint expenseof tw o estates, th e n ature o f th e r epairs to be donemustbe poin ted out a n d th e w ork appor tion ed . Mar tins ’
v.
Morgan .
Rule .
Un der 5 of 1 868, S 1 1,th e Court h a s jurisdiction to
en tertain application s for an ord er on a Mag istrate to
en tertain , h ea r an d d etermin e a ch a rge . Wrigh t
Ga rn ett .
rl‘h e practice un d er S. 1 1 , is th e same as th e practice in
th e Queen’
s Ben ch in ca ses ofman d amus. If) .
Th e refusa l of th e Mag istra te to en tertain a preliminary poin t , an d th e declin in g of th e Magistra te to en ter on
en quiry on a question of fact or la w n ot going to themeritsof th e complain t, but w h ich th eMa gistra te believes w ould
put an en d to th e ca se on question of law or fact is amatter forma nd amus . K ryen h off v . Glasgow (cit. R.
v . Goodrich , 1 9 L .J . Q . B . con trafiw hen decisionis on a question of fact a n d la w . Ih .
Wh ere Mag istrate refuses to en ter ta in , or issue a
summon s th e Cour t w ill enquire w h eth er such refusal
w a s in pur suan ce of h is disc retion ary pow er over the
proceeding w h ich th e Magistrate w as legally justified inexercising . Wrigh t v . Garnett .
STAMPACT.
Rum.Un der 1 3 of 1 834it is n o offen ce to remove a less
quan tity of rumth an 2 g allon s. Cuvilye v . La n d ry ;an d selling rumw ith out a licence un der 1 5 of 1850 S. 2th e chargemust sta te it to be less th an 40 g a llon s.
D’
Aguiar v. H ar ris .
Gun s of proof th at liquor foun d is not a spir ituousliquor is on Defen dan t . Solomon v . Lo-a-yew . SeeREMOVAL, SPIRIT, &c .
Rumun d er Pr oof — See TESTING RUM.
Sa le .
A ch arge for sellingmore th an on e quart of rumisbad . Pequen o v. Younge .
Sa le of ca rgo of vessel .— See VESSEL
by H a w ker .— See HAWKER.
defin ition O f. —See WORDS.
Sa lt
comes un der th e d efinition of drug s. Green slade v.
Figueira .
Sel ler , in citing to sell .— See ABETTOR.
Sen ten ce — See CONVICTION .
Service un der Ma ster Servan t Act — See WORDS.of Rea son s ofReview .
—See REASONS.
Sig n -b oa r d .
Question as to w h eth er sig n-board over spirit Sh op
h aving been on ce pa in ted in con formity w ith law sh ould
be re-pain ted a s n ecessity a rises, raised , but n ot decided .
Straker v. Vieira .
Stamp Act .
A deposit receipt or a ckn ow ledgmen t for sh ar es in a
company is a receipt un der th e Tax O rdin a n ce an d liablefor stamp duty. King v . Belgrave (Cit . Tomh z'n s v .Ash by,6 B . C. 541 , 542 ; Livingston e v . Wh itny, 1 5 Q . B . 723
R. v. Ha rvey, R. R. 227 In/on’
s ca se,2 Lea ch , 597
R. v. Geode”, C. C. 672 ; R. v. West,2 C. K .496 ; Clarke
v. New sam, 1 6 L . J. N . S. 297; Claw sV. Ch ap lin, 1 Ex
STAMPACT. 120 SUMMONS.O
Adocument reading deposited by th e sumof $20 for full instalmen ts on 5 sh ares in th e above
company” an d sign ed by th e H on . Sec. of th eCompanyis a receipt under th e Stamp O rdinance 6 of 1 888 S.
38, an d liable for stamp duty. King v. Belgrave (cit.Ashby, 6 B. C. 541 as n ot in poin t) .
An acknow ledgmen t formon ey deposited in a companya s investment is liable for stamp duty. Ib.
Statutory Question
in summary proceedings before a Magistratemust beput to th e Defendant or proceedings in Review w ill be
qua sh ed . Popw ell v. Bar nes ; H enriques v. An son ;D
’An drade v. Fitz Al lan (th e same rule a plies in th e
Petty Debt Court. Ford v. Small , I. C. 1 2. .87 ;Roch av. D
’
ornellas, I. C. Rugonauth v. H eera , I. C.
C.
It is taken as h aving been put if Magistrate’s note is
statutoryquestion put”
. Porter v. Burrow es Furth er,see PLEA.
Statutory Provision s
a s to procedure n ot to be departed from. De Freita s
v. Fitz Allan ; D’Andrad e v . Fitz Allan . Furth er, see
REASONS.
Summons — Service.
Wh ere summon s is sw orn to h ave been served per
son ally w h en in fact it w as left w ith a th ird party, and
th e Magistrate adjudicates, it in va lidates th e proceedings.Ca rdoz a v. Younge
Service on w ife is good . Kryenh off v. Glasgow .
Service on Attorney of absen t proprietor O f spirit shopmust be proved notw ith stan ding th e appearance of th e
Attorn ey of such proprietor . Rodrigues v. Burrow es.
Evidence as to service th at th e summons w a s ha ndedto C
”th e sh op assistan t, is not enough to enable th e
Mag istrate to try a Sunday trading case under S. 3
again t F”
ch arging h imth at h e traded un der th e
n ame , style and firmof A. F. J. T. Fern andes v.
Francis.
SUNDAY TRADING .
'1 22 BAD CHARGES.
Ch arge against ow ner need not h ave th e w ords “ byh is servan t.
” Sw ain v. De Fa ria
Leaving out th e w ord Sunday in th e ch a rge is ama tter for amendmen t. Wrigh t v. Da Silva .
Pr esump tion of Sa le.— Wh ere a rumsh op is open and
the sh opkeepers are in th eir places and strangers are on
th e premises, th ere is such a degree of presumption th a tth e sh op w a s open ed for th e purpose of sale th at it is
competen t for th e Magistrate to find to th at effect in th e
absen ce of coun tervailing evidence. De Farn issah v.
Fran cis ; Ch un -a-sh oo v. Fran cis ; Lee-a-ong v . Fran cis ;Y oung
-a—samv. Francis ; or th e fact th atmon ey passedover th e counter . Gonsa lves v. Greene. Further, see
Post.
Th e liability to prosecution for Sun day trading doesn ot in any w ay depen d on th e h olding of a licence.
D’Aguia r v . Barn es ; King v. Gomes (cit . Ca tis qui tam
v. Win ter) .Th e onus of proving th a t th e seller is not th e Defend
an t lies on Defendan t . Ha rrig an V . De Rouse .
Selling beef in a ca rt w ith beef scale and w eigh ts aftermid-day on Sun day, is a n offence against th e O rdinance.
De Souz a v. Griffin .
BAD CHARGES.
To ch arge th e Defen dant as being th e ow n er of
goods in a shop w h ich said sh op w as Open &c . is bad ,a s th emere ow n ersh ip of goods sold on Sun day is nota n offen ce . Gomes v. Fra n cis ; Pequeno v. Bin ns
A ch arge th at th e Defendan t “ is ow n er of goods
to w it rumin a certain sh op situate at w hich
said sh op w as open on th e said Sun day for th e purposeof sel ling th ere certain of said goods is bad . Corria
v . Bin n s, cit . D’An dra de v. H arrigan ; Henderson V.
Jard ine ; follow ing D’An drade
'
v. Harrigan an d Sw ain v.
De Souz a .
Wh ere th e'
ch a rge is th at Defen dant is ow ner of
goods &c. w h ich w ere exposed &c.
”and th e conviction
is “th at Defen dan t being th e h older of a licen ce for a
sh op &c. , on Sunday th e 1 5th O ctober , he a t h is‘
said
sh op w as th e ow ner of certain Iice and oil t igh w ere
SUNDAr'
TRADING. 123 SECTION 3.
‘fl th en and th ere exposed for sale &c. it w as h eld th a t'
themean ing of the language used , is th at th e Defenda n t
w as convicted of th e offence ch arged and th e convictionmay be amended . Ramalh o v . Cressell .
PROOF.
Prove 1 . Shop in information is sh op of Defendan t 2.
that it w as opened for th e purpose of sellin g on th e Sun
day stated in th e ch arge ; 3. idem, by a person in
Defendant’
s employ ; 4. th a t th e Defendan t w as th e
ow ner“
of th e goods in th e sh op generally or o w n er of
some particular goods therein on th e Sunday n amed ”DosRamos v. Francis ; or by some oth er not by w h ich it
‘
might be inferred th at he aided , abetted , counse lled or
procured th e sale by h is sh opma n . De Souz a v. Fra ncis .
Defendant is entitled to h ave th e place so described a s
to enable himto plead a con viction or acquittal in bar ofanoth er prosecution for th e same offence and th e place
in th e ch arge and th e place g iven in eviden cemust beproved as one and th e same . Corr ia v.Wrio'h t or theremust be evidence on w h ich a presumption can lie th a t the
goods w ere Defendan t’
s an d th e fact ofmon ey passingfor sale of such goods w ill be a presumption th at th e sa lew as by the Defendant
’s servan t. Gon salves v. Breen .
SECTIO N 2.
Actual seller liable, n ot th emaster. Binn s v. De Freitas .
Under thisSection it is not to be presumed a ga in st th eow ner by th e sale by a shopman in h is employ th a t h e
a breach of th e law . DeSouz a v. . Fran cis .
s not necessary to prove th e ow nersh ip .
of t he :goods . in th e shop, th is not being an element ofthe ch arge under th is Section . Ib.
Themaster is liable und er , Sec. 2 for. breach by h is
serva nt w h ere evidence is given framw h ich itmigh t beInferred that . he dire-end th e opening of th e shop fortraflic or the sale of goods. D
’Aguia r v.Wrigh t.
SECTIO N 3.
”Themaster. is liable for th e breach of h is servan t
Without evidence of h is“
know ledge. Gomes v. Francis ;Wright v. Pequeno ; follow ing Binn s v. De Freitas ;
SUNDAY TRADING . 1 24 SURETY.
Pequeno v. Binn s ; De Souz a v . Fran cis D'An drade v.
H'
a rrigan (cit . Somerset v . H a r t, L . R. 1 2 Q . B. D. 362)Sw ain v . De Fa ria ; Sa n tos v . Darrell .
Un der S. 3 Defen dan t h as w ar ning th a t it is in tended
to prove h is liability an d th a t th e open in g of th e sh opw a s done by a pe rson in h is employ. De Souza v . Fran cis.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Severa l ca ses — Wh ere th ere a re severa l sa les on a Sun
day in th e same sh O p by th e same person th ere can be
on ly on e con viction . Sa n tos v. Da rrell (cit . Crepp v.
Dunba r , l. S. L . C. 649 ; Attorn ey Gener a l v. McLean,
1 H . O .
Quoerce w h eth er tw o sa les by Defen dan t in tw o several
sh ops on Sun d ay belon ging to th e same ow n er can be
pleaded as a n t. con . Raised in De Cambra v. Straker .
Not determin ed .
Th e op en ing of a shop in w h ich g oods are exposed for
sa le is an offen ce aga in st th e O rd in an ce , a lth oug h n o sale
actua lly took place . De Pa iva v . Fran cis ; D’
O rn ellas
v. Fra ncis .
Sur ety .
Th e process of ord erin g sureties of th e peace and committing in de lault as exercised by Justices of th e Peace
in En g la nd under th e old la w is d erived fromth eir commission s an d fromth eAct 34Ed . 3, c . 3. Quera w h eth er
Magistra tes in th is colony h ave th e pow er . Even a ssumingth at th ey h ave, itmust be sh ow n th at th e party seekingsuch protection goes in fear an d in danger of person al
violen ce fromth e per son against w h omh e sw ea rs th e
informa tion ; it is n ot a p rocess of pun ishmen t but forpreven ting crime . Cun n ing h am.V . Lon g . Evidencemust be g iven th at th e Complain an t w a s in fear of h erlife before Defen dan t can be bound . Ragabone v.Rodiah ;an d itmust be so laid in compla nt . 17 of 1880, Sec. 5 .
In ca ses of a ssault Wh ere th ere is n o allegation or
evidence sh ow ing th at th e pa rty prosecuting appreh ended
or th a t th ere w a s in fact d an ger to h imfromsubsequentviolen ce fromth e Defen dan t th e Magistra te exceeds h is
jurisdiction by binding Defen dan t to keep th e peace.
Cli nn ingh amv. Long .
TESTING RUM.126 TRADER.
Testin g Rum.Must be done by th e Commissary after th e
,
six hours’
notice a llow ed under 25 of 1 868 S. 54for th e ow ner toget th e same tested by an independen t person . Gomesv . Sw ain ; and rumseiz edmust be tested in th e Defendsan t
’s sh op before remova l by th e Commissary. Gonsalves
V . Layton .
Timber . See CROWN LANDS.
Time .
Wh ere . a th ing is to be don e w ithin a certain number .
of days,an d th at time expires on a Sun day, th a t Sunday.
is to be reckon ed on e of th ose days. Martin v. Joseph .
Th e time limited for commen cing proceeding s by th eSta tute relating to each particula r casemust be adh eredto , a nd th e . con sent of Defen da n t cann ot cure a defect
of jurisdiction in poin t of time . Cox v. Bascom(cit. R.
v . Tally, 3 East 467) but w h ere Defendan t is absen t
fromth e Colony, th atmay be a good reason for suspend
in g th e issue of a summon s, but it cannot dispense w ith
th e n ecessity of layin g th e in formation in proper time .
Cox v .Williams (cit. Potts v . Cambridge, 8 Ell. Bl.
Th e genera l rule in Eng land is, th at both terms or
en ding s of th e period for doing or sufiering someth ing isin cluded but O f late it is usua lly reckoned as ei clusive
of th e first and inclusive of th e last d ay. Th ere is no
gen era l rule‘
applicable to a ll ca ses . Strag h an v. Ch apman .
Under th e Roman la w w h ich th e Dutch considered th e
Written law ,th e computation of time w a s sometimes
reckon ed dememen to inmomen tum. Ib.
Th e term“eigh t da un der S. 5 of th e Review
O rdin an ce is con strued ememinmom, and not to th e dayafter th e h earing or pron un ciation of the sen tence. 1b.
Title to L ann ie — Assault arising in disputes— See
ASSAULT JURISDICTION.
Tra d er .
Aperson usmg a cart to sel l Ha ssas is not a trader .
Van Brook v. King ; but a person using a cart to delivermilk &c. in pursuance of a con t ract to supplymilk 65C.
TRADER. 1 27 VAGRANCY.
is a trader . Patoir v. Layton ; Mayers v. Anderson(bread) Smith v. Ba rclay (cocoanuts to bemanufacturedin Defendan t
’
s factory) . Fur th er , see CARRIAGE, 850 .
Tr amw ay .
In a case w h ere a travel ler gets on th e car , and doesnot y for a ticket w h ich h e receives on th e g round
that e h ad paid for th e same, it is for th e Magistrate to
con clude w h eth er h e inten ded to avoid paymen t of h isfare or n o. Log ie v. Tramw ays Company.
Th e By-La w s sh ould be placed con spicuously in th e
cars as required by By-Law 1 6. Perreira v. Davis.
Where th e By-Law enacts th at each passenger is bound
to sh ow or deliver up h is ticket w h en required to do so
by, or to th e con ductor or any a uth orised servan t of th e
Company, a n d th e passen ger takes h is ticket an d h an ds
it to th e conductor w h o return s h imh alf of th e ticket
and h e receives it, h e is liable for refusal to sh ow or
deliver up h is ticket if on demand h e refuses to deliverup th e h alf ticket to th e in spector . Ib. (In th is case itw as raised w h eth er th e passenger w as bound to receive
back th e h a lf ticket, but th e poin t w as n ot decided) .
Trespa ss — See JUBISDICTION— DISPUTED TITLE.
Va g r a n cy .
Ch argemust bea r the da te an d year in w h ich it is
exhibited , as w el l th at itmay appear to be subsequen t toth e offence, but prior to a ll th e oth er proceedings, in
order to ascertain th a t th e prosecution is w ith in th e timelimited by th e particula r Statute on w h ich it is founded .
Turnkey v.z
King (cit. It. V . Ken t, 2 Ld . Ray 1 546 ; R. v.
Euller, ib. 5 1 0 Pa/yleyTo con stitute
‘vag rancy un der th e O rd in ance,
w h ich
enacts th at any person beh aving in a riotous or d isorderlymann er or in any public street or thorough fare, or in any
ga rden immedia tely adjoin ing th ereto an d.
open to th e
public view , th e riotous or d isorder ly beh aviourmust beshow n to h ave taken place in the public street"immediately adjoining th ereto and open 859 . w h eth er th e
thoroughfar e &c . be in h is ow n yard or no . Ib.
VAGRANCY. 128
A ch a rge for riotous an d disorderly con duct at Pln .
E is irregular un der th e Vag ran cy O rdin an ce . Ib.
Va g r a n t, defin ition of.— See WORDS.
Va lue
of premisesmust be given before Magistrate can adjudicate th e cla ss of licen ce to be taken out on a cha rge for
selling goods w ith out a licen ce in a sh op . Gon salves
V . Sw ain .
Va r ien ce .—See AMENDMENT .
Vessel .
Amaster of a vessel w h o sells h is cargo first and th en
con sign s h is vessel afterw ard s, is liable to conviction for
selling th e cargo w ith out licen ce , even if th e buyer bemade th e Consignee. Darrell V. Gardn er .
Volun ta ry Sta temen t .
Wh ere Defendan t in a case un der licen ce law is summoued to produce a licence a n d proof is n ot given th at a
licence h ad been issued , or th a t n otice to produce had
been served , an d in an sw er to th e ca ll Defen dan t states
th at h e does n ot produce th e licence , th a t h e is h older
of th e licence an d forgot to bring it to th e Cou rt. Held,th is is n ot a volunta ry sta temen t . De Freita s v. Elliott .Fur th er , see PLEA.
W a g es .
Under 20 of 1 856 an d 1 8 of 1 858 w ages beingliquida ted an d a scer tain ed sums are debts in a legal sen se
of th e w ord andmay be levied on by distress w arran t.
Bur row es v . Craw ford .
PREVENTING LEVY O N .— See ASSAULT .
ABATEMENT or .— See MASTERAND SERVANT.
W a iver .
O bjection n ot taken in th e Court belowmust be h eldto h ave been con sented to, but w h ere proceedings are so
defective a s to amoun t to a nullity, it can not bemadevalid by con sent or w aiver ; a nd such objection th e.maybe
WAIVER. 1 80 WARRANT.
Itmust be remembered th at (w h atevermay be th epow er of th e Supreme Courts about exercising jurisdiction by con sen t w h ich is th e effect of w a iver in such a
ca se) con sen t could not cure such a defect in a pen a l
ch a rge , w h ile th e pow er of amend ing such ch arge is not
confided to th e Magistrate . Da Silva v. Greaves .
Act preceden t — Wh ere th e law requires a cer ta in th ingto be don e , such a s service of reason s O f review an d th e
service 850 . is late , n o w aiver or con sen t to a llow w hat
w a s don e could be of any effect . Poud a rsin g V . Coyle ;but w h ere proceedin g s a re to be adjudicated upon at or
n ea r th e Spo t w h ere th e a lleged trespass w as committed(revenuema 'ter , claimof sh ing les) th e par tiesmay w aive
r igh t of proceedin g s bein g taken some o th er place .
Ferreii a V . Wigh t .
Th e receipt O f rea son s of appea l n ot sig n ed is a w aiver
of a ny Objection a s to th e ir regula rity for n on -signature,Ragabon e V . Green slade . Furth er, see REASONS.
WAIVERof illega l a rrest — See ARREST.
O f Postponemen t —See POSTPONEMENT.
Wa r r an t .
Wh eth er a person is leg ally or illega lly a rrested on
a w a rran t is imma teria l for th e Magistrate to decide ;being before th e Justice h ow ever brough t th ere , th e
Justice if h e h ad jurisdiction in respect of time an d place
over th e Offen ce, is competen t to en tertain th e ch arge th enbroug h t before h im. Morrison V. Ramdah an (cit . R. v.
Hugh es ; R. v . Bolton ). Furth er , see O PIUM.
Wh ere an immig rant is a rrested w ith out a w a rran t for
d esertion , but th ere is a w a rran t a t th e time again st h im,an d h e is sen t fromstation to station till h e gets to a
sta tion w h ere th e w arran t is,an d h e is arrested on th at
w ar ran t th e Magistra te can n ot argue a s to th e illegalityof h is a rrest . Ib.
Wh ere th ema tter in revie w goes again st an Appellantw h o appeals froma conviction of th eMag istrate sentencingh imto imprisonmen t, a w arran t is issued again st th e
Appellan t. Gumbleton V. Jackson ; and in Dan iel V.
WARRANT. 1 31 WEIGHTS MEASURES.
d ley th e Court of Review issued th e w arran t for ar rest
of th e Appellan t .Th ere is n o general la w or O rdinance limiting th e time
for issuing execution on a summary conviction for n on
paymen t of a pena lty. Math eison V. Gray (cit. R.V. O a t
bush , et a l, 36'
L . J. N . S. M . C.
Wa tchman — See IMMIGRANT— MASTER SERVANT.
Weigh ts a n d Mea sures .
S. 1 1 of O rdin ance 1 3 of 1 85 1 does not limit possessionof un just w eigh t to ow n er, but includes every ca se ofna tural possession , th e production or possession of th ew eigh t by th e sh opman is eviden ce of possession , Dinez
v. Sw ain an d th e finding in th e sh op ofDefendan tmakesh imliable . Gon sa lves v . Cressa ll ; but th e ow ner ca nnot
be convicted ofmore th an on e Offence if th ere a re severa l
un just w eigh ts foun d in th e same sh op on th e same day.
Gomes v. Burrow es .
Th e possession of an un just w eigh t is differen t to th eu sing
”of th e same . Cabral v. Younge . Th e fin ding
of an un stampedmeasure on busin ess premises is n ot an
Offen ce un der 13 of 1 85 1 . Ch an-a-poo v. Burrow es.
Th e fin ding O f an un just w eigh t amongst oth ers over th ecoun ter of Defen dan t
’
s sta ll is sufficien t eviden ce for
th e Magistrate to convict of h aving in possession . Welch
V. Fraser ; but eviden cemust be given to Sh ow th at
goods w ere kept or exposed for sale on th e premises inw h ich th e un just w eigh ts w ere found . Wh ite V. Brumell.Abaker w h o sells bread to a retail dealer is n o t liable
for ca rrying bread for sa le w ith out scales (St e . Men des
v. Layton . As th emere possession O f un just w eigh t 850 .
is not sufficien t, th eremust be evidence th at th e w eigh t
85 0 . w a s seiz ed by a person under S. 1 1 of O rdina n ce.
Cabral v . Y ounge ; H O-a-h ing V. Layton (cit. Gon sa lves
V. Layton).TESTING .
Weigh t 850 . n eed not be tested in th e sh op in w h ich
it is foun d ; th e un just w eigh tmaybe removed to Georgetow n an d th ere tested w ith th e Imperial w eig h t. Men des
v. Burrow es Gomes V.Burrow es and it is not necessary
WEIGHTS MEASURES. 1 32 WITHDRAWAL.
to prove th at th e w eigh t w as tested in Defen dan t’
s Sh op.
Gon sa lves v . Layton 1 885 (h eld n ot applicable , Cabral
v. Y oun ge cit . for th e appellan t) ; th e w eigh t n eed n otbe compa red in th e sh op w h ere it is seiz ed . Jefirey v .
Burrow es, follow in g Gon sa lves v . Layton an d Gomes V.
Bur row es . In Men des V . Burrow es th e Court O f Reviewdirected th e Ch ief (
'
Ommissary to h ave th e w eigh t tested
a n d repor t th e result O f such testing to th e Court .
Quart — See WORDS.
W h ipp in g .
Th e conviction n eed n ot state th e person’
s n ame w h ois to impose floggin g . Hutson V. Roson .
Th e time fixed for w h ippingmust be in th e conviction .
H erbert V . Abrah ams ; or a l imit w ith in w h ich it is to
be don e Io, cit Ed w ar d s v . Bacch us (cit . Atkinson V .Rem,3 Brow n
’
s Pa r liamen ta ry Ca ses) Glasg ow v . De Freitas.
Adults — Th e w h ippin g can n ot be directed to take
pla ce w ith in th e period a llow ed for seekin g review (1 0d ays) . Williams v . Pr imo , cit . 1 9 of 1 856, an d 5 O f 1868.
Wh en a w arded — Wh ere th e va lue of th e propertystolen a n d prosecuted for un de r 20 of 1856 S. 41 exceeds$ 1 0 in va lue, floggin g can n ot be a w a rded by th e Magis
tra te . Reg . v . Dun bar .
Infan ts — Wh ere w h ippin g alon e is ordered th e boymust be d etain ed or boun d over to appea r on th e day th e
w h ippin g is to take place, a s th e Magistra te is functusofiicte by th e con viction , an d th ere is n ometh od O f
bringin g th e boy ba ck in to th e custody of th e executive
Officer for th e execution of th e sen ten ce . Herber t V .
Abrah ams .
W ith d r aw a l .
Case w ith draw n by con sen t, Appellan t agreein g not to
trespa ss on esta te ag a in , th e Respon den t agreein g n ot to
put in for ce con viction aga in st Appellan t for such tres
pa ss . Apollos V . Scott . Idemin revenue case. Da SilvaV . Man th orp.
In Review Cour t th e proceedings can be w ith draw n as
WITNESS. 134 PROVING JURISDICTION.
PROVING JURISDICTION.
If n ot objected to at th e time th e Magistratemay evenafter th e close of compla in an t’s case ca ll a w itn ess to
establish jurisdiction , but h e can n ot of h is ow nmotionprocure eviden ce to supplemen t th e Plain tiff
’
s case.
H ookem-ch un v . Alexan der . In De Souz a V. RoachCHALMERSC.J. says I do not th ink th at th eMagistrate
could re-open th e case for th e purpose of taking evidence
upon jurisdiction after h e h ad closed it to con sider judg.men t,an d th e w itn esses h ad been a llow ed to go
Ma teria l omission ; Proving Fia t — Th eMag istrate .mayr eca l l a w itn ess after th e prosecution is closed an d after
objection taken by Defen dan t th at th e fl at of th e Attorn eyGen era l h ad not been proved , to prove such fiat . Mohunv . Turn er but w h eth er a w itn ess ca n be recal led to prove
amaterial omission after th e case is closed w as questionedin Hookemchun v . Alexan der a nd decided th at such recall
w a s illegal in Williams V. Lyn ch .
In a ca se for n ot taking out a licen ce th e Magistratemay r eca ll a w itn ess after th e prosecution is closed to
prove th e va lue of th e premises so a s to rate th e licen ceun d er 8 . 3 of 8 of 1 880 (th e Tax O rdin an ce), even after
objection is taken . Lopes v . King (cit . R. V. Romdaut,R. 85 R. 1 36 ; Aldred v. H a liw ell, 1 Stark 1 1 7 ; Giles V.
Pow ell , 2 C. 85 P .
Supp lemen ting ea se — Th eMag istrate can n ot of h is ow nmotion procure eviden ce to supplemen t Plaintiff’s case
a fter th e case is closed,ib, or express any opin ion as to
th e effect of closed pr oof an d th en admit evidence in sup
plemen t . Faria v . Inn is, expla in ing Joseph v . Ruckuph old in g Lopes v . King (cit . Adams v . Ba nkh art, 1 C.
M. R. 68 1 ; Midd leton et a l v . Ba rn ed ,4Ex. 441 ;Sh eldon v. Attorn ey Genera l, 22 L T. N . S. 631 ;Reg. V.
H ayn es, 1 F . F.
Discretion of Magistra te.-Th e Magistrate h as not th e
like discretion a ry pow er a s a Judg e of th e Supreme Courtin dispen sin g w ith th e order of receiving proof . Lopes
v . King . H emay put a question to a w itn ess after th e
case h as been closed an d before giving h is decision ,the
question being on e th a t h emigh t h ave put during th e
WITNESS. 1 35 WORDS.
enquiry, an d as w ould brin g out legal eviden ce on ly.
Ba tiste v . Bur row es .
After a case is closed an d immediately after a w itness
is reca lled a n d a question put on th emerits an d th ere isno n ote of an ad jour nmen t for furth er h ea ring on eviden ce ,but on ly a n ote on ow n bail till to-morrow ”
th e recall
ing of th e Compla in a n t an d th e furth er h ear in g of h imisultr a t ires a nd vitia tes proceedings . De Souz a v .Roach .
Wh ere th e Magistra te sits in summa ry proceeding s itmust be a very exception al ca se in deed th a t can justifyh imin doingmore th an to a llo w each par ty th e fullest
oppor tun ity to complete h is case , oth er w ise h e becomesa party to th e ca se w h en h e takes upon h imself to directw h at evid en ce is to be put before h im. Williams v . Lyn ch .
A Mag istrate sittin g a s a jury can after prosecutor’
s
case is closed , recall a w itn ess tomake furth er en quiryrespectin g th e property, after Coun sel states th at h e h as
closed h is case, an d w h ere an objection is taken to th e
eviden ce, h emaymake a ny fur th er en quiries of th e
Witn esses if h e th inks fit in order to an sw er th e objection ,
an d in such ca se th e Coun sel for Defen dan t cross
examin es th e w itn ess . Jardin e v . Cruicksh a n k (cit . R.
V. Re’nnan t, R. R. C. C. R. 1 36, Roscoe’
s Dig . 7 ed .
132, In dian Eviden ce Act,
O ATH To WITNESS.
Question w h eth er o a th to w itn ess can be admin isteredby Magistra te
’s Clerk raised but n ot decided in Aben
dan on v. Sproston .
Wor d s , in terp r eta tion of .
ABBREVIATION
To abbreviate Superin ten dent.
to Sup is irregu
lar . Da Silva v . Ma nn .
Th e letter s S. J . P , after th eMagistra te’
s Sign ature
do not show a ny jurisdiction or office . De Souz a v.
Wigh t ; D’Aguia r V . Gordon (cit . Pr a evielc v . Bell
, 1
Saun . D’Aguia r v . H arr is.
21 or 1 891 ,
S. 29. The rules of in terp reta tion and con struction h erein
WO RDS. 1 36 ACTSor PARLIAMENT.
before con tain ed w ith respect to O rdin an ces sha ll, unlessth e con trary in ten tion appears, app ly,muta tismutandisa n d so far a s th ey a re not in applicable th ereto, to other
Sta tutes excep t Acts of Pa r liamen t, w h eth er pa ssed beforeor after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin an ce .
S. 2 . In th is O rdin an ce a n d in every O rdin an ce passed
after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin an ce, an d in everyOfiicia l documen tmade or executed after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin auce, th e follow ing expression s sh all,un less th e con trary in ten tion appea rs, h ave th emean ingsh ereby r espectively assign ed to th em.Th is clause refers to th e in terpreta tion of a ll w ords
h erein n oted , a s un der In terpreta tion O rd inance”
a s
again st th e w ord s expressed under h eading s Colony,”
Govern or,” Ma les,
" Writing .
”
ACTSor PARLIAMENT.— 2l OF 1 891 .
S. 30, S.S. 1 . Wh ere by a ny Sta tute, w h eth er passed
before or after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin ance, an
Act of Pa r liamen t, or a ny portion of an act , is declared
to enten d to th is Colony, such Act or portion of an Actsh a ll, un less th e con trary in ten tion appears, be deemed toat tend to th e Colony so f a r on ly a s loca l law s a n d circums tances permit ; an d in applyin g such Act or portion of an
Act it sh all be con strued w ith such verba l a ltera tion ,n ot
affecting th e substan ce, asmay be n ecessary to ren der th esame applicable to th e par ticularmatter in question .
S.S. 2 . Th e Ch ief Justice or a Puisn e Judge, or anyofficeror fun ction ary exercising fun ction s an alogous to th e func
tion s of any Judge , officer , or fun ction ary referred to in
such Act or portion of an Act sh a ll be deemed to be w ithinth emean ing of th e en actmen t th ereof rela ting to such
lastmen tion ed Judge , officer or fun ction a ry.
S. 3, S.S. 1 . Wh ere in a ny Sta tute, or in a ny ofitcia l orlega l documen t passed ormade after t h e commen cemen tof th is O rdin an ce , a n Act of Pa r liamen t is refer red to, suchActmay be cited by referen ce to th e shor t title, if any, of theAct, eith er w ith or w ith out a referen ce to th e ch apter
or by referen ce to th e r egn a l yea r in w h ich th e Act w as
passed a n d w h ere th ere a remor e Sta tutes or session s th an
on e in th e same r egna l year , by r eference to th e Sta tute or
WORDS.—BRITISH . 1 38 COMMENCEMENT or GED.
of H er Majesty’s domin ions exclusive of the United King
dom, an d w h ere parts of such dominion s are un der botha cen tra l an d a loca l leg
islature, all pa rts un der th e
cen tral legislature sh a ll, for th e purposes of th is defini-tion , be deemed to be on e British Possession .
S. 5 , S.S.4. Br itish Colony”sha llmea n any part of
H er Ma jesty’
s domin ion s ez cbusive of th e British Islandsa n d of Br itish India , an d w h ere par ts of such dominionsa re un der both a cen tra l an d a loca l legisla tur e , all partsun der th e cen tral legislature sh a ll, for th e purposes of
th is definition , be deemed to be on e Colony.
S. 5 , S.S. 5 . Br itish In dia”
sha llmea n a ll territo
ries a n d p la ces w ith in H er Ma jesty’
s domin ions w hich
a re for th e time being gover ned by H er Maj esty th roughth e Govern or-General or oth er officer subordina te to theGovern or-Gen er al of India .
S. 5 , S.S. 2 . Th e British Islan ds’ sha llmean the
Un ited Kingdom, th e Ch ann el Isla nds , and th e Is le of Ma n .
BYE-LAw .—See STATUTE.
COLONY .— 21 or 1 891 .
S.4. -In this O rdin a nce a n d in every oth er O rdinan ce,w h eth er pa ssed before or a fter th e commen cemen t of th isO rdin an ce , an d in every ofi cia l documen t w h eth ermadeor executed before or after th e commen cemen t vof th is
O rdin an ce, un less th e con tra ry in ten tion appears ,Th e expression s Th e (
'
olony”
an d Th is Colonysh a ll sever a llymean th e Colony of
“
British Guiana and itsdep enden cies.
COMBINED COURT.~
S. 5 , S.S. Th e Combin ed Court sh a llmea n th eGovern or a nd Cour t of Policy of th is Colony w ith th e
Fin a n cia l Represen ta tives th ereof in Combined Court
a ssembled .
COMMENCEMENT or O RDINANCE.— 21 or 1891 .
S. 1 0 . Provision s a s to th e commencement of
O rdin an ces are con tain ed in Section 29 of th e British
Guian a Con stitution O rdina n ce, 1891 .
WORDS.-CO MMENCE. 1 39 CONSTRUCTION or O RD.
2. Th e provision s of th e said Section an d a lso of
Section 30 of th e said O rdin an ce sh all,muta tismutan dis,
apply to O rdin an ces en acted by th e Govern or w ith th e
advice a n d con sen t of th e Combined Court .
S. 1 1 . in th is O rdin an ce an d in every oth er
O rdin an ce, w h eth er pa ssed before or a fter th e commen cemen t of th is O rd in an ce, th e w ord commen cemen t” w h en
used w ith r eferen ce to an O rdin an ce, sh allmean th etime at w h ich th e O rdin an ce comes in to opera tion .
Wh ere any O rdin an ce pa ssed a fter th e commen cement of th is O rdinance, or any order of th e Cover
n or an d Cour t of Policy, order , w ar ran t, Sch eme, letters
patent, rules , regulation s, or bye-la w s,made , g ran ted ,
or issued un de r a pow er Con fer red by any such O rdin a n ce ,is expressed to come in to operation on a pa rticular d ay,th e same Sh all be con strued as coming in to opera tionimmedia tely on th e expira tion of th e previous day.
CONSTRUCTION, &C.,OF O RDINANCE.
S. 1 2.— Every Section of a n O rdin ance sh all h ave effect
as a substan tive en actmen t w ith out introductory w o rd s .
S. 1 3 .—Every O rdin an ce pa ssed after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin an ce sh a ll be deemed to be a public
O rdin an ce a n d sh a ll be judicia lly n oticed a s such , un less
the con trary is expressly provided by th e O rd in an ce .
S. 14. —Any O rdin an cemay be a ltered , amended , or
r ep ea led in th e same session of th e Court of Policy or th e
Combin ed Court, a s th e ca semay be .
S. 1 5 . Wh ere an O rdin an ce, w h eth er passed
before or after th e commen cement of th is O rdin a nce,
contain s a sh or t title, it sh a ll be sufficien t in a ll Cour ts
and for all oth er purposes w h atsoever to cite such
O rdin an ce by its sh ort title.
In any O rd in an ce passed.
after th eo
commencemen t of th is O rdin an ce , a descrip tion or ci ta tion of a p or
tion of a noth er O rdina nce sh a ll, un less th e con trary in ten
tion appea rs, be con strued a s in clud ing th e w ord , section ,
or oth er pa rtmen tion ed or referred to a s formin g th ebeginning an d a s forming th e en d of th e portion comPI
‘lsed in th e description or citation .
S. 1 6.-Wh ere an O rdin ance, w heth er passed before
WoRDs.— CONSTRUCT. 140 CONSTRUCTION OF O RD.
or after th e commencemen t of th is O rd in ance , is dividedin Pa r ts, Titles, or oth er division s, th e fact an d particulars
of such division sh a ll , w ith or w ith out expressmen tionth ereof in such O rdin a nce , be taken n otice of in all Courts
an d fo r a ll oth er purposes w h a tsoever .
S. 1 7 . Th e preamble of an O rdin an cemay bereferred to for assistan ce in explain ing th e scope and
object of th e O rd in an ce .
Every sch edule or table to a n O rdinance, or
pa rt of a n O rdin a nce , Sh all, togeth er w ith any notes
th ereto , be construed and h ave effect as par t of th e
O rd ina n ce .
S. 1 8. Wh ere an O rdin an ce passed after th e
commen cemen t of th is O rdin an ce confers a p ow er or
imposes a duty, th en , unl ess th e contrary in ten tion appears,th e pow ermay be exer cised a nd th e duty sh a ll be per
formed fromtime to time a s occasion requires .
Wh ere an O rdin an ce passed a fter th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin ance confers a p ow er or imposesa duty on the h older of a n ofiice, a s such ,
th en, un less th e
con tra ry in ten tion appears, th e pow ermay be exercised
an d th e duty sh a ll be performed by th e h older for th e
time bein g of th e office .
S. 1 9 .— Wh ere an O rdinan ce pa ssed a fter th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin a n ce is n ot to come in to Opera tion
immedia tely on th e passing th ereof, an d confers pow er tomake a ny appoin tmen t, tomake , gran t , or issue any instrumen t, th at is to say, a ny order of th e Governor an d
Cour t of Policy, order , w arran t, sch eme , letters paten t,rules, regula tion s, o r bye
-law s, to give n otices, top rescribe
forms, or to do a ny other th ing for th e purposes of th e
O rdinan ce, th a t pow ermay, un less th e con trary in ten tionappea rs, be exercised a t a n y time after th e p assing of th eO rdin an ce, so fa r a smay be n ecessa ry or expedien t forth e purpose of br in gin g th e O rdin an ce in to Opera tion at
th e d ate of th e commencemen t th ereof, subject to this
restriction , th a t any in strumen tma de un der th ep ow er sh a lln ot, un less th e con trary in ten tion appea rs in th e O rdinance or th e con tra ry is n ecessa ry for bringing th e
O rdin an ce in to operation , come in to opera tion un til the
O rdin ance comes in to opera tion .
WORDS.— CROWN. 142 EVIDENCE OE GAZETTE.
CROWN .-21 CE 1891 .
S. 22.— No en actmen t sh a ll in anymann er w h atsoever
afiect th e righ t of th e Crow n , un less it is th erein expressly
stated , or un less it appea r s by n ecessa ry implication,th a t th e Crow n is boun d th ereby.
S. 6.— In th is O rdin an ce an d in every oth er O rdin ance,
w h eth er passed before or after th e commen cemen t of th isO rdina n ce , refer en ces to the Sovereign reign ing a t th e timeof th e p assing of th e O rd in a n ce or to th e Crow n sh a ll,un less th e con trary in ten tion appea rs, be con strued a s
r eferen ces to the Sovereign for th e time being ; and th isO rdin an ce sh a ll be bindin g on th e Crow n .
COUNTRY H OUSE — See O FFICE.
CYCLOSTYLEWRITING .—See WRITING .
DAY .— 21 OF 1891 .
S. 5 S.S. 1 0 . Da ys sh a llmean clear days.
1 1 . Day”
sh allmea n tw enty-f our h ow s,
to be reckoned dememen to inmomen tum,un less a Sunday
or public h oliday in tervenes, in w h ich ca se such Sun dayor h olid ay sh a ll not be in cluded in th e computation of
such h our s .
DELIVERY .-See SALE.
DIVISION OF O RDINANCE — See CONSTRUCTION .
Dr ive O ff .
Un der S. 9 of O rdin an ce 7 of 1 866 th e w ord s drive
off”apply on ly to an ima ls on th e p remises of th e ow ner .
H ookemch un V. Alexa nder .
DUPLICATE O EEENCES.— 21 or
S. 24.— Wh ere a n a ct or omission constitutes an offenceun der tw o ormor e la w s, w h eth er any such law came intoforce before or a fter th e commen cemen t of th is O rdi
n an ce , th e ofien der sh a ll , un less th e con tra ry intention
appea rs , be lia ble to be prosecuted an d pun ish ed under
eith er or a ny of th ose la w s but sh a ll n ot be liable to be
punish ed tw icefor th e same offen ce.
EVIDENCE OF GAZETTE.— See RULES.
WORDS. -FEMALES. 143 G OVERNOR.
FEMALES.— See MALES.
FINANCIAL YEAR.—21 OF 189 1 .
S. 5 , S.S. 1 2.— Th e Fin an cia l Yea r sh a llmean
, a s
respects anyma tters relating to th e reven ue an d expendi‘
ture of th e Colony, the tw elvemon ths ending on. th e thir tyfirst dla
‘
y of Ma rch , in clusive, in a ny year .
G amin g .
Pieces of bra ss used for gaming” come un der th eh ead of oth er in strumen ts . 21 of 1 856 . To-yah et a l V.
Morancie (cit . for Appellan t an d h eld a s n ot applicable,Colborn e v. Stockda le, Str .
A house w h en kept for th e purpose of common gamin gis a place
”un der 21 of 185 6. Ib.
GAZETTE.— 2 l or 1891 .
S. 5 , SS. 1 5 . Th e Ga z ette sh allmean Th e O flicia lGa z ette of British Guiana or oth er O fficia l Gaz ette of th isColony.
GAZETTE, eviden ce oi.- See RULES.
Gn u — See Post.
GOVERNOR— 21 OF 1891 .
S.
'3.— In every O rdin ance p assed after th e 8th day qf
March , 1856, w h eth er before or after th e commencementof th is O rdina n ce, an d in every oflicia l documen tmade or
executed after th e commen cement of th is O rdin an ce,th e follow ing expression s Sh a ll , un less
‘
th e con traryin ten
tion appears, h ave th emean in gs h ereby respectivelyassigned to th em, th a t is to say,
(l ) . The Govern or”sh a llmean th e Oficer for th e time
a dministerin g th e Governmen t of th is Colony.
Mon th”sh allmean ca len da rmo nth .
O a th”an dAffida vit
”sh a ll , in th e case of person s
for th e time being a llow ed by law to affirmor declareinstead of sw earing , include afiema tion a n d declara tion ,
and “ '
Sw ea r”sh a ll , in th e like case, include afirman d
decla re.
WORDS.—GOVERNOR. 144 LUCRI CAUSA.
S. 5 , S.S. 1 0 . Th e Governor-ih -Council” sh allmeanth e Govern or a cting w ith , but n ot n ecessarily in accordan ce
w ith th e advice of, th e . Ea ecutive Coun cil of th is Colony.
INDIA.—21 OF 1 891 .
S. 5 , SS. 6. India”
sh a llmea n British In dia to
geth er w ith any territories of a ny na tive Prince or t’
h iefunder th e suz era in ty of H er Maj esty exercised th rough th e
Governor-Gen era l of India or th rough any Governor or
oth er O fficer subordin a te to th e Governor-Gen eral of
India . See BRITISH INDIA.
Inst rumen ts .
O th er in strumen ts an d pieces of brass used for gamingcome und er h ead of oth er in strumen ts. 21 of 1856.
To-yah et a l V. Moran cie (cit . for Appellan t, h eld not
applicable, Colborne V. Stockda le, 1 Str .
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF O RDINANCE.— See CONSTRUCTION, S. 1 3.
Justice
mean s MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATE mean s“ JUSTICE.
Holmv. Rhod ius.
M a g istra te — See JUSTICE.-2l OE
“
1891 .
S. 5 , SS. 1 7. Magistr a te sh a llmean a Stipendia/ryMagistr a te of th is Colony, an d sh all in clude th e PoliceMagistra te and th e Assistan t PoliceMagistra te of George
tow n ; an d also any Specia l Justice of the Peace of th is
colony.
LAND—meaning of— See CONSTRUCTION or O RD., S. 35 .
LETTERBY POST- See POST.
LITHOGRAPHY— See WRITING.
Lucr i Causa .
Lucri causa mean s animusfurandi th e purposeO f converting articles taken to th e taker
’
s ow n use.
D’Abreu V. H aw ker .
WORDS.—MAY . 146 O CCUPIER.
equa ls must th at is, a Magistratemust issue a summon s an d h a s n o discretion ary pow er w h en a pplication
ismade to h imon a w ell laid ch arge w h ich on th e face
of it brings th e ca se w 1th in h is jurisdiction . Wrigh t V.
Gar n ett (cit . R. v . Ba r low , Sa lk413 ; R. v. Todd , 1 Str .
530 R. V . Bolton ,1 Q . B . 66 ; It. v. Adams, 1 Q. B. D.
20 R. V . Ingram, 14Q . B . 306 ; Exp . Wa tson,4L .
R. Q . D . Th e Magistr ate cann ot refuse to issue
summon s because h e does not believe th e truth of th ema tter after h e h ad seen a w itn ess on th e in formation .
Wrig h t V . Ga rn ett (cit . Ca ve v . Moun ta in , 1 M. Gr .
2f‘
l ) or un less h e refuses on some g roun d s duly ascerta in ed w h ich t h e law recogn iz es a s sufficient . Torr O p v.
Ja rdin e . If h e disbelieved th e statemen t of facts in an
in formation a n d w a s r efusin g th e summon s on th at groun d ,th e informan t w ould be en titled to know th is an d support
h is ow n a ssertion by oth er testimony. Torrop v . Jardine.
Mon ey .
Under ch a rge for h olding en tertainmen t for moneyor rew a rd
”th e terms “mon ey or rew ard
”a re not
syn onymous . Th e termr ew ard”
can on ly apply to a
person an d n ot to th e en tertainmen t w h ich could not becapable of rew ard . Gibbon s v. Straker .
Mon th
in pen a l en actmen tsmean s “ lun ar mon th of 28 days.
Clemen tson V . Comach o .
“ Ca len d ar mon thmea n s “mon th ” a s per ca lendar . Ib.
Und er Section 2 of O rdin an ce 9 of 1856 (ca se ofa ssault) mon th ”mean s calen dar
”mon th un less w ordsh e added to Sh ow th at a
“ lun ar”month w a s in ten ded .
Butler v . Dougla s.
In terpreta tion of mon th .— See GOVERNOR.
O ATH .— See GOVERNOR.
CEPENCES,more th an one .-See DUPLICATEO FFENCES.
O ccup ier .
A pe rson w h o exposes freshmeat for sa le in a cart in
a rural district on a public road w h ere a sort ofmarket
WORDs.— O CCUPIER. 147 PEACE O FFICER.
is, is n ot a n occupier of a shop, room, sh ed , sta l l, orlace . Burrow es v, Joaquin ; (cit . Bow s v. Fenw iclc
, 9 ,339 ; Boggay v . Ca ttern s, 1 9, C.B.N .S 765
,
over-rulin g 1 7 , 669 ; Shaw v. Mar/y, 3, Ex . ,
137 ; a nd h eld a s n ot in poin t ; H arris v. Jen ns, 30,83 ; Young v. Gra ttidge, L .R,4, Q.B.
Da ce .
Holder oi .— Duty imposed ou.— See CONSTRUCTION.
S. 18.
Under licence lawmean s place of business of Ba rr is
ters, Advocates, Attor neys-a t-Law , and th e like
Baker v . Campbell ; a nd Coun ting House mean s officeof bankers , agents, attorn eys of a bs
'
en t proprietors , ih
and does not include places w h eremerchants, foun dries,&c. , keep th eir accoun ts an d settle w ith those w h omth eyemploy, ib.
O R, O THER, O THERWISE.— 21 O F 1 891 .
S. 5 , S.S. 26. O r ,”
O th er,
”O therw ise, sh a ll b
construed disjun ctively an d n ot as implying similar ity,un less th e expression similar ,” or some equiva len texpression , is added .
O RDER IN COUNCIL .— See STATUTE.
O RDER OF GOVERNOR.— See STATUTE.
O RDmANCE.— See STATUTE.
Commencemen t of.— See COMMENCEMENT.Repeal oil— See REPEAL.
O THER.— See O R.
O TIIERWISE.— See O R.
PARLIAMENT.-L—2l OF 1891 .
s. 5 , S.S. 7 .— Th e Imper ia l Pa rliament or Pa r liament sh a llmean th e Pa r liamen t of th e United Kingdom.PEACE O FFICER.
—2l O F 1891 .
S. 5 , S.S. 1 8. Peace Oflicer”
sh a ll include any
Magistrate or Justice of th e Peace, an d any Police, or
Rur a l, O b Speeia l Constable
WORDS. —PENALTY. 148PENALTY FORBREACH or RULEs. -See RULES.
PERSON .— 21 or 1 891 .
S. 5 , S.S. 25 . Person sh all include any body ofpersons corpora te or unin corpora te.
— Ia th e con struction of every en actmen tr ela ting to an offen ce punish able on indictmen t or on
summary conviction , w h eth er con tained in an O rdin an ce
pa ssed before or after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdinan ce , th e w ord “
person”
sh a ll, un less th e con traryin ten tion appears, in clude a body corpora te.
— Wh ere un der any O rd in a nce, w h eth er passedbefore or after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdinan ce, anyforfeitur e or pen alty is p ayable to a p a rty aggrieved, it
sh a ll be p ayable to a body corp ora te in every case w here
th a t body is the p a rty aggrieved .
PHOTOGRAPHY.-See WRITING .
POLICE CONSTABLE— 21 or 1 891 .
S. 5, S.S. 1 9. Police Con stable sha ll in clude any
Member of th e Police Force of th is colony.
Pl a ce
under th e Tax O rdin an cemust be con strued ejusden
gen eric w ith th e w ords w h ich precede it, un less th epre
ceding w ords are so exh austive as to leave noth ing w h ich
can be called ejusden gen eris. Burrow es v. Joaquin (cit .Fenw iclc v. Schn a ly, L . R. 3 C. P. 31 5 Ea stw ood v.
Miller , L . R. 9 Q . B . Bow s v . Fen w w h , 9 L . R. C.
P. 339 ; De Gett v. Ga ttern s, 19 C. B. N . S. 765 ; Harris
v. Jenn s, 30 L . J. M. C. 83 Young v. Gra ttridge, L . R.
4Q. B. 1 66.
Un derTax O rdinance 1888 every person w h o occupiesany sh op, room, sh ed , sta ll , ya rd , or place in th e rural
districts w h eremeat oth er th an fresh pork or game issold , sh all take out a licence . Th e w ord place
”does
not cover th e case of a person w h o exposes freshmeatin a cart on a ublic i-oad w h ere a sort ofmarket is h eld .
Burrow es v. oaquin, cit . Mayers v. An derson (WillesJ. in Femoick v. Sch/h a ly, L . R. Q . B.
WoRDs. -REPEAL. 1 50 REPEAL.
REPEAL or O RDINANCES, &O .-21 or 1 891
S. 25 .
— Wh ere an O rdinance after th e 8th day of Ma rch1856, w h eth er before or after th e commen cemen t of th isO rdin an ce , r epea ls in w h ole or in part any former en actmen t an d substitutes provision s for t he en actmen t re
pealed , th e r ep ea led en a ctmen t sh a ll, un less th e contraryin ten tion appears, rema in in force un til th e substituted
p rovisions come into Oper a tionS. 26.
— Wh ere a n O rdin an ce p a ssed after th e 8th day ofMa rch 1 856, w h eth er before or after th e commen cemen tof th is O rdin an ce , r epea ls a r epea ling en actmen t, it sh allnot be con strued a s reviving any en actmen t previouslyr epea led , un less w ord s are added revivin g th at en actmen t .S. 27 .
— Wh ere th is O rdin an ce or a ny O rdin an ce passedafter th e commencemen t of th is O rdin an ce repea ls and
re-ena cts, w ith or w ith outmodifica tion , any p rovision s ofa former O rdinan ce, refe ren ces in any oth er O rdinan ce
,
or in any official or leg al documen t , to th e provision s sor epea led , sh a ll , unless th e con trary in ten tion appears, becon strued a s referen ces to th e provision s so re-en acted.
Where th is O rdin a n ce or a ny O rdin an ce passed after the
commen cemen t of th is O rdin an ce , r ep ea ls any other enactmen t, th en , un less th e con trary in ten tion appears, the
rep ea l sh a ll n ot,Revive anything not in force or existing at th e timeat w h ich th e repeal takes effect ; or
Afl'
ect th e previous Opera tion of any en actmen t sorepealed or anyth ing duly don e or suffered
un der any en actment so repea led or
Af eet a ny right, p rivilege, obliga tion , or liabilitya cquired , accrued , or in curred under any enactmen t so repealed ; or
Afl eet a ny pen a lty, forfeiture, or punishment incurr ed in respect of a ny Ofience committedagain st any en actmen t so repea led ; or
Afiect any in vestiga tion , lega l proceeding, or remedyin respect of any righ t, privilege, obligation ,liability, pen alty, for feiture, or pun ishmen t asa foresaid ;
a nd any such investigation , legal proceeding , or remedy
WORDS.— REPEAL. 1 5 1 RULESOECOURT.
may be in stituted , con tinued , or en forced , a nd any such
penalty, forfeiture, or pun ishmen tmay be imposed , as if
th e repealing O rdin an ce h ad not been passed . SeeCO NSTRUCTION, S. 14.RESCINDINGRULES.
-SeeRULES. BREAKING.-SeeRULES.
REWARD.-See MONEY .
RULES.—21 or 1891 .
S. 21 . Wh ere an O rdin an ce, w h eth er passed
before or after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin an ce,confers pow er on any auth ority tomake rules, th e follow ingprovision s sh all , un less th e con tra ry in tention appears,ave effect w ith referen ce to th emaking an d operation
of such rules
(a). Any rulemay be a t a ny time amended , varied ,rescin ded, or revoked by th e same auth ority and
in th e samemann er by an d in w h ich it w asmade;(b). Th eremay be a nn exed to th e breach of any rule
such pen alty, not exceeding jtw enty-four dollarsas th e rulemakin g auth oritymay th ink fit, andany such pen altymaybe sued for an d recovered
under th e Summary Jurisdiction O rdin an ce.
(c). No rule sh a ll be in consistent w ith th e provisions ofa ny ena ctmen t ;
(d) . All rules sh all be published in th eGazette and sh allh ave th e force of law ;
(e). Th e production of a copy of th e Ga z ette con tainingany rule, or of any copy of any rule purportingto be prin ted by th e Governmen t printer , sh all
be p rimd facie eviden ce, in a ll Cour ts an d.
for
all oth er purposes w h a tsoever , of th e duemakingand ten or of such rule .
In th is section th e expression rules Includes
rules an d regula tions, regula tions, an d bye-lanes. Furth er,
see STATUTE.
RULES, construction of. —See CONSTRUCTION or RULES.
RULESOF COURT .— 21 OF 1 891 .
S. 8. In every O rdin ance passed after th e.
commencement of th is O rd inan ce, un less th e con trary Inten
WORDS.— RULE8 or COURT. 1 52 SERVICE.
tion appear s, the expression Rules of Court, w h en usedin relation to any Court, sh a llmea n rulesma de by theauthority h aving for th e time being pow er tomake rules ororders regulating th e practice an d proced are of such Court.
Th e pow er of the sa id auth ority tomake Rules ofCourt as above defin ed sh a ll include p ow er tomakeRulesof Cour t for th e purpose of any O rdinan ce passed afterth e commen cement of th is O rdinance an d d irecting or
auth oriz ing anyth ing to be don e byRules of Court .
Rum.
un der Sun day Trading O rdin ance comes under th e h eadof provision s, and a sale in a tavern of th is article duringth e h ours allow ed for th e sale of provision s is n ot proh ibited . Da Silva v. G reaves. O rdinan ce afterw ards
pa ssed taln'
ng rumout of th e category of provision s.
Sa lemeans exposing for sale. Greenslade v. Figueira ; and
w h ere O rdin ance Speaks of exposing”for sale th e sell
ing is an offence . 1b.
Un der O rdin an ce4of 1877,Section4, th e w ord sa le
ofmore th an one quar t of rumis not syn onymous w ithdelivery.
”Pequen o v . Y ounge.
SCHEDULE or O RDINANCE— See CONSTRUCTION, S. 17 3
SEAL .— See PUBLICSEAL.
SECRETARY OESTATE— 21 OF 1891 .
S. 5 , S.S. 8. Th e Secretary of Sta te sh allmeanH er Majesty
’
s Principa l Secretary of Sta te for theColoniesfor th e time being .
SECTION or ORDINANCE — See CONSTRUCTION, S. 12.
SEND.— See POST.
SERVE— See POST.SERVICE BY POST.— See POST.
Service.
un der Master an d Servant’
s Actmean s th e daily labouror w ork for th e performan ce of w h ich th e labourer is
engaged . Hin tyen v. Scott .
WORDS.— U. KINGDOM. 1 54 WRITING.
UNITED KINGDOM.-2l OF 1 891 .
S. 5 , SS. 1 Th e United Kingdomsh a llmea n th eUnited Kingdomof Grea t Brita in a n d Irelan d .
Vagr an t ,
mean s on e w h o frequen tly w an ders about w ithout h avinga fixed domicile or permanen t place of abode, an d n ot a
per son w h o is simply convicted of disorder ly conduct,un less th e opera tion of th e Vag r an cy la w be committedto vag ra n ts properly so cal led . An in dustrious order lyan d h on estma nmig h t for acts involving n o g reatermora l delinquency th an th e w ilful Viola tion of a ny posi
tive law ,find h imself classed amon g idle an d disorderly
person s for th e first offence, th en among rogues and
vagabonds for th e second , a nd lastly amon g incorrigiblerogues , an d a ll for offen ces itmay be of a trivial
ch a ra cter . Turnkey v. King .
VARYING RULEs .— SeeRULES.
WRITING .— 21 OF 1 891 .
S.4.—~ In th is O rdin ance an d in every oth er O rdin an ce,w h eth er passed before or after th e commen cemen t of th isO rdinance, an d in every Official documen t w h eth ermadeor executed before or after th e commen cemen t of th isO rdin an ce , un less th e con trary in ten tion appears,
Expressio ns referring to Writing”
sh a ll be con
strued a s in cluding r eferen ces to p rin ting, lithography,
ph otography, and oth ermodes of representing or
reproducing w ords in visible form.
APPENDIX .
CASESDECIDED FRO M JANUARYTO SEPTEMBER, 1 892 .
AUTHO RITIES QUO TED.
Vict. I I 1 2. 1 0 v. Sobers.24 2 5, c. 97 v. King .
S. 5 1 , 58
S. 52
C.
O RDINANCESCITED AND CO MMENTED O N.
1 850 , Trespass v. King .
1 853, 2 v. Haynes.
1 856, 1 9 of S. I4 v. Sobers.1 856, z r v. Sobers.
1 862 , 2 1 of. S. 48 v. King .
49
1 868, 2 5 of, SSS
. 32 , 35, 64 v. Cameron .
z o
1 873, 7 of. S. 1 60 v. Hun ter.1 887, Gold Min ing v. FarnumCo.
1 890 , 6 of v. Cameron .
1 891 , 2 of
I 7 of v. Sobers.
AUTH O RITIESCITED AND CO MMENTED O N .
Craigen v. Mungar, R. C., B. G . inTaylor v.. Hunter.Kryen h ofi v. G lasgow , R C. , B.G in Coelho v. Ring .
Luckie v. An son , R. C B.G . in Captain v Sobers.
Rajutteah v. An son , R. C., B.G
Reg . v. Martin , 8 Q .B.D. 54 in Vyle v. Kingv. Pem1iton , L .R. z Q C. 1 1 9
1 2 Cox CC.
v. Ward , L .R. Q C. 356
v.Welch . I 3 Cox Q C.
Simon v. Gouvia, R.C B.G . in Captain v. Sobers.
APPENDIX.
cern ing location and occupation of claims, so far as such questions ariseun der th e Regulation s, but not in collatera l question s ; test of law fuloccupation .
Semé le— A Governmen t O fiicermay at least by con sent of partiesdetermin e as to priority of location , a lth ough th e Rules provide alsoanoth er Tribun a l.
Th e law regulating th e proceed ings before a Governmen t O fficer ind isputes betw een party an d party is Similar as to prin ciples to th e lawofmag isteria l proceed ings ; secus as to tech n icalities. H emay not aftuponmatters of private know ledge , in w h ich th ere is not evidencemf or a ; nor h ave recourse to pow ers arismg out of h is status a s an O fficerof th e Executive Governmen t.Defen dan tmay bring in to issue th e title of a Compla inan t w h o alleges
infringemen t of h is righ ts, but onus lies on h imof sh ow ing h e h as
properly don e so . Win ter v. Farnumai d l, 26 Feb . 1 892 .
Case d ecided on faéts. Joseph v. Lauren ce, 2 1 Jun e 1 892 .
Immigrant , Evid en ce of ind enture — See EVIDENCE.
Immig ration Agent Genera l .— Un der S. 1 60 of O rd . 7 of 1 873a Sub Agen t h as n o auth ority to aét for an immigran t un less speciallyauth orised by th e Immigration Agen t G en era l . Taylor v. H unter,2 September 1 892 .
Injury to Property.— See MAL ICE.
In solvent , evidence of. —See EVIDENCE.
Joint Ch arges— See DUPLICITY .
Licence Duty .—Th e h older of a reta il Spirit licence w h o h ad not
pa id th emon th ly insta lmen t of duty un til th e 6th d ay of th emon th suc
ceed ing th at for w h ich it u as due,h eld in arrear. Baptista v Cameron ,
2 2 January 1 892
Mag istrate’
s reason s— See AFFIDAvn
Ma lice — A person aétsmaliciously w ith in th emean ing of SeEtion49 of O rd in an ce 2 1 of 1 862 w h o does an un law ful a& w ilfully w ith outjust excuse . Person a l ill-feeling is not essen tia l but is n ot excluded .
Vyle v. King , 5 February 1 892 .
In order to be an offen ce un der th e enaétment, th e aftmust h aveproduced in jury, th e probable an d natural result of th e aft. 1 6.
Proviso to Seftion 49 of O rdin ance explain ed . 1 6.
Master Servant — Tomake breach of con traét an offence itmustbe la id an d proved th at th e person aga in st w h omit is la id is w ith in th edescription of con traétors w h ose failure to comply w ith th eir obligationsmay be dealt With pen ally. Barth olomew v. Haynes an d Walcott, 5February 1 892 .
Misch ief. —See MALICE.
APPENDIX .
Penalty— Court of Review can not alter fine of Magistrate because
it is th ough t excessw e . Baptista v. Cameron , 2 2 January 1 892 .
Reasons ofMagistrate — See AFFIDAVIT.
Spirit Licence.— See LICENCE.
Statutory Provisions— See EVIDENCE.
occupan t w h o h olds possession after sale and purch ase
h e w ill of th e true ow n er, an d after th e true ow ner h as been
in possession , h oldsma la fide, and such occupancy is n ot
a defen ce to w ilful trespass. Coelh o v. King , 8 January 1 892 .
Waiver .— See DUPLICITY .
Wilful Trespass — See TRESPASS. m5.”