before the justices in petty sessions or a stipendiary magistrate that he is guilty of the offence, the power to such justices or magistrate to convict and sentence is not confined to theft of a small amount, but extends to cases of simple larceny, whatever the value of the property stolen; it extends also to cases of stealing from the person, and to larceny as a clerk or servant. Where, however, the accused does not so confess being guilty, the power to convict and commit is limited to cases of simple larceny of the value of 5s., or of having attempted to commit larceny from the person, or simple larceny ; and in any of these cases the prisoner is to be asked whether he consents to the charge being thus summarily determined, or whether he wishes the case to be sent for trial by jury (For a fuller statement, see F. Bk., 333-335; 4 Step. C., 188-394-503, 4th ed.).

III. Can a conviction be sustained on the unsupported evidence of an accomplice; and, when corroboration is for any reason necessary, is it enough to confirm the accomplice as to the circumstances attending the offence itself, without any confirmation connecting the accused with the offence?

ANS.-The testimony of an accomplice is in all cases regarded with just suspicion; and unless his statement is corroborated in some material parts by unimpeachable evidence, the jury are usually advised by the Judge to acquit the prisoner (4 Step. C., 462, 4th ed.; see F. Bk., 347; 3 L. Č., 289–290).

IV.-In what cases is the deposition of a witness before a magistrate admissible in evidence on a trial, in the absence of the witness?

ANS.-By 11 & 12 Vic., c. 42, s. 17, if upon the trial of any person it shall be proved that any person whose deposition shall have been taken before the magistrate is dead or so ill as not to be able to travel, and that the deposition was taken in the presence of the accused, and that he or his counsel had an opportunity of crossexamining the witnesses, then if such deposition purport to be signed by the justice before whom such deposition purports to have been taken, it shall be lawful to read the same in evidence without further proof, unless it shall be proved that such deposition was not in fact signed by the justice purporting to sign the same (F. Bk., 338-347; 2 L. C., 14; Key, Crim. L., 102).

V.-Define the malice which constitutes the distinction between murder and manslaughter; and whether it must necessarily be directed against the individual who is killed?

ANS.-Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another without express or implied malice aforethought; it may be either voluntary upon a sudden heat, or involuntary, but in the commission of some unlawful act. Murder is unlawfully killing with malice aforethought, either express or implied. The malice need not necessarily be directed against the individual who is killed: thus, if a man resolve to kill the next person he meets, and do kill him, it is murder, although he knew him not, for it is universal malice (4 Blackst. C. 200; Archb. Crim. Pl. and Ev., 409, 8th ed.).

VI. Can a wife be convicted, and in what cases, of offences committed in the presence of her husband?

ANS.-See page xxiii. for this answer.

VII. Is the finder of lost goods, bearing the owner's name and address, guilty of larceny if he appropriates them to his own use?

ANS.-The finder of goods bearing such name and address will be guilty of larceny if he appropriates them to his own use, as he had thereby the means of knowing who the owner was (Key, Crim. L., 35; Reg. v. Thurborn, 13 Jur, 499; F. Bk., 60-198-319; L. C., 346; 2 Id. 12, 230; 1 L. C., N. S., 23; 7 Week. Rep., 60).

VIII. Does a clerk, who has the key of a safe in which his principal's money is kept, with authority to use the money for purposes of business, commit larceny by taking it out of the safe for his own use?

ANS.-Though the point is of no importance it may be stated that the clerk would be guilty of larceny, the money having been in the master's constructive possession (2 Russ. Crim. L., 158, 3rd ed. ; Rosc. Crim. Pl. and Ev., 591, 6th ed). By the 14 & 15 Vic., c. 100, any person indicted for embezzlement as a clerk, &c., is not to be acquitted if the offence turn out to be a felony, and vice versa. IX. Is the mere omission by a clerk or servant to account at the proper time for a sum he had received for his master sufficient evidence of embezzlement; and if not, what additional evidence would be enough to prove the offence?

ANS.-It seems (for the authorities are not quite agreed) that where it is the duty of the clerk or servant to account for and pay over moneys received by him at stated times, his not doing so wilfully is an embezzlement, though he do not actually deny the receipt of the money; but in general there is evidence given of a denial of the receipt, or of an untrue entry in the books. If the receipt of the

money for the master be admitted, the wilful omission to pay it over will not, it seems (though in this respect the cases differ), amount to embezzlement (Chitty's Stat, 2nd ed., 167; Rosc. Ev., Crim. L., 430-632, 4th ed.; Archb. Crim. Pl. and Ev., 378, 13th ed.).

X-Is the fraudulent removal of unfinished goods by a servant from one part of his master's premises to another, in order to induce the master to pay wages for them as if they had been finished, but without any intention to take them away, a punishable offence, and under what class of offences does it fall?

ANS.-This is a punishable offence for endeavouring to obtain money by false pretences, it not being necessary that the pretence should be in words, for there may be a sufficient false pretence to be implied from the acts and conduct of the party, without any verbal representation of a false or fraudulent nature (Archb. Cr. Prac., 465).

XI.-Where the consent of the owner to part with his goods has been obtained by fraud, what is the test for distinguishing whether the offence is larceny, or obtaining goods by false pretences; and where it is doubtful under which of those classes it falls, how should an indictment be framed so as to insure a trial on the merits, if it fall under either class? ANS.-The test is this:- In order to convict for obtaining goods by false pretences it must be proved that the prosecutor meant to part with his right of property in the goods. If he part with the possession only, and not with the right of property, the offence is larceny (Archb. Crim. Proc., 46). If the indictment be framed for obtaining goods under false pretences, no acquital is allowed on the ground that the case proved amounts to larceny (7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53).

XII.-What proceedings, and within what time, must be

taken by a party dissatisfied with a justice's decision in point of law for bringing the question before a superior court, and what steps must be taken, and in what court, if the justices refuse to state a case?

ANS-The 20 & 21 Vic., c. 43, provides, with respect to any information or complaint summarily determined before a justice or justices, that any point of law arising thereon may be brought immediately before any of the superior courts of law in the form of a case for the opinion of such court, the appellant first entering into a recognisance to submit himself to the original determination, unless it be reversed. The application for the case must be made in

writing, and security given to prosecute within three days after the decision. The case must be transmitted, within three days after its receipt, to the superior court. If the justices refuse to state a case, application may be made to the Queen's Bench for a rule calling on them to show cause why the appeal should not lie (see Law Dict., pp. 96-99).

XIII. Is a party summoned to answer an application for an order to contribute to the maintenance of an illegitimate child, compellable under 14 & 15 Vic., c. 99, to give evidence for the applicant; and, if so, is he bound to answer questions respecting his sexual intercourse with the mother during the eight months immediately preceding his examination, that being the time limited by 27 Geo. 3, c. 44, s. 2, for criminal proceedings in an Ecclesiastical Court for fornication?

ANS. The party summoned may be examined on oath for the mother, if regularly summoned as a witness; but it would seem that he cannot be required to answer the question as to sexual intercourse (see Oke's Mag. Syn., 62-895, 7th ed.).

XIV. Have justices power under 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 27, to deal summarily with a charge of assault where the complainant desires that the accused should be bound over to keep the peace, or to grant a certificate of dismissal if the complainant withdraws his complaint during the hearing?

ANS.-Justices of the peace would seem to have power to deal summarily with a charge of assault, though the complainant wishes that the accused should be bound over to keep the peace. The justice may grant a certificate under the statute, though the complainant withdraws his complaint during the hearing (17 Law Journ., M. C., 67; Oke's Syn., 238, 7th ed.).

XV. Are persons who take an excursion of pleasure on Sunday in company together, going ten miles from home and returning the same night, travellers within 18 & 19 Vic., c. 118, s. 2, so as to justify a licensed victualler in furnishing them with wine or spirits between three and five p.m.?

ANS.-Yes; the only words being "travellers" (2 L. C., 120; 28 L. J., M. C., 12; 1 L. C., N. S., 48).

SUMMARY OF DECISIONS.

EASEMENT.-Light and air-Alteration of windows-Materiality -Remedies of owners of dominant and servient tenement-Restoration of windows to old condition-Injunction-Delay in stopping interruption-Parties left to remedy at law.-If a person has acquired an easement, such as the right to light and air over the land of another, he cannot afterwards alter his windows so as to turn such easement into one of a more important character. The right of the owner of the servient tenement to complain of such alteration depends upon whether it is material or not. The measure of the materiality of the alteration is the extent to which the owner of the servient tenement is prejudicially affected by it. If the alteration has been material, the owner of the dominant tenement may, by restoring the windows to their original condition, regain the easement which he previously had, and if the owner of the servient tenement attempt to obscure the ancient lights which the owner of dominant tenement originally had, the court will, if the owner of the dominant tenement will submit to an order to restore the windows to their old condition, grant an injunction to restrain the owner of the servient tenement from obscuring such ancient lights. If the parties complaining of an interruption in their enjoyment of an easement fail to institute proceedings to stop it until the new building has been completed, the court will not grant an injunction to restrain the interruption, but will leave them to their remedy at law (Cooper v. Hubbuck, 9 Week. Rep., 352).

PATENT-Prolongation - Assignee.—The court has authority to grant the prolongation of the term of a patent to an assignee, even after the original patentee has ceased to have any connection with the working of it. Where the assignees of a patent, with the working of which the original patentee had ceased to have any connection, were prevented from working it at a profit, on account of the discovery of the gold fields in Australia, the court granted a prolongation of the term for five years (re Napier's Patent, 9 Week. Rep., 390).

BILL OF EXCHANGE.-Notice of dishonour-Dispensing with notice -In the case of Potter v. Rayworth (13 East, 417), where it was known that the ordinary notice required by law had not been given, but the defendant acknowledged his liability to an indorsee of the bill subsequent to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff having brought his action and relied upon the acknowledgment so given and so made, in giving judgment the court said :-"That, whether the promise to pay was made to the plaintiff or to any other party who held the note at the time, it was equally evidence that the defendant was conscious of his liability to pay the note, which must be because he