Rape.-Venue unnecessary.-Allegation that the woman ravished was above twelve years of age, unnecessary. Robbery. This is a form under sec. 34 of the Larceny Act, page 331, ante. It is entirely defective, even after verdict.

Burglary.-Word "burglariously" omitted.-The particular felony intended must also be specified. This form bad, even after verdict. See remarks under sec. 38 of the Larceny Act, p. 353, ante.

Stealing money.-Stealing money is simple larceny under sec. 5 of the Larceny Act, p. 290, ante, and the form given for simple larceny in this schedule covers it. Stealing from the person is covered by sec. 32 of the Larceny Act, p. 315, ante, and this form does not cover it. property or any money the value of which is covered by sec. 86 of the Larceny Act, p. 457, ante, and this form, if intended to fall under that section, should allege that the sum of money stolen was of more than $200.

Stealing any over $200 is

Embezzlement.-See proper form, p. 386, ante, under sec. 52 of the Larceny Act.

False pretences.-What are the false pretences should be set at full length.

See, p. 420, ante, remarks under sec. 77 of the Larceny Act.

After verdict, an indictment was quashed for not stating - what the false pretences were. R. v. Mason, 2 T. R. 581. This decision was before the statute which enacts that, after verdict, an indictment in the words of the statute is sufficient.

In R. v. Goldsmith, 12 Cox, 479, it is said that the question whether such an indictment, not stating what are the false pretences, would be sufficient now, after verdict, has not been raised. See R. v. Kelleher, 14 Cox, 48.

In Ontario and Quebec, before the Consolidation Acts of 1869, sec. 35 of ch. 99, C. S. C. expressly dispensed with the necessity of setting out the false pretences in all indictments for obtaining by false pretences; but this clause has been repealed by the General Repeal Act of 1869.

Offences against the habitation.-See proper form under sec. 2 of c. 168, p. 558, ante.—The word "unlawfully" is wanting. The statutory offence is therefore not covered by this form.

In R. v. Davis, 1 Leach, 493, the indictment averred that the defendent unlawfully, maliciously and feloniously did shoot, etc. The words of the statute creating the offence charged were. "That if any person shall wilfully and maliciously shoot......... he shall be guilty of felony.' As the word " wilfully was not in the indictment, it was

held bad.

"

So in R. v. Cox, 1 Leach, 71, it was held that the term "wilful" in a statute is a material description of the offence, and that an indictment for such an offence must necessarily aver that the act was "wilful" or done "wilfully. "Quod voluit dixit, said Patteson, J., in R. v. Bent, 1 Den. 157; if the Legislature has said that the doing such an act wilfully shall be an offence, the indictment must charge the defendant to have done it wilfully. That the words of the statute must be pursued is a safe and certain rule; an inquiry whether other words have the same meaning, must be precarious and uncertain.

So in R. v. Turner, 1 Moo. C. C. 239, it was held that if a statute makes it criminal to do an act unlawfully and maliciously, an indictment must state that it was done unlawfully; stating that it was done feloniously, voluntarily and maliciously is not enough. So an indictment charging the prisoner with "feloniously, wilfully and

maliciously" cutting, is defective, and judgment will be arrested upon a verdict thereon, if the statute creating the offence uses the word " unlawfully."— R. v. Ryan, 2 Moo. C. C. 15; R. v. Lewis, 2 Russ. 1067.

Malicious injuries to property.-This form is under sec. 4. of ch. 168 p. 562, ante.-The word "unlawfully" is wanting. Also the words "with intent to defraud" or "injure. "-Bad, even after verdict.

Forgery. See general form, ante, p. 484, ante, for forgery under statute, and p. 486, ante, for forgery at common law, and under sec. 28 of Forgery Act, p. 512, ante, for forgery of a promissory note.

Coining. The words "intent to defraud" are a surplusage in the count for counterfeiting under sec. 3. c. 167, p. 537, ante. The last part of this form is for a misdemeanor under sec. 12 of c. 167, p. 544, ante, and is not in the words of the statute.

Subornation of perjury.-The words "aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid" should be inserted after the words "and the jurors." Each count is a separate presentment, and every presentment must appear to be upon oath.-1 Chit. 249; Archbold, 73.

Offences against the publicpeace.-This form is entirely defective. It is under sec. 9 of c. 147, p. 35, ante, and the words unlawfully and feloniously are omitted. See proper form with that act, p. 36, ante.

Offences against the administration of justice.-This form is presumed to cover the offence created by sec. 89 of the Larceny Act, under which, p. 459, ante, see a proper form.

The present one has not the word "feloniously." Then it does not allege that the defendant has not used all due diligence to cause the offender to be brought to trial.

This is an exception, and a well established rule of pleading directs that if there be an exception contained in the same clause of an act creating an offence, the indictment must show, negatively, that the defendant does not come within the exception.-Archbold, 62.

Bigamy.-See form, p. 76, ante, under c. 161.

The two last counts in this form of the second schedule are for offences under secs. 1 and 3 of that act.

--

Offences relating to the army.-This form is to cover the offence created by sec. 1 of c. 169.-It is entirely defective. It should allege that the accused was not an enlisted soldier in Her Majesty's service or a seaman in Her Majesty's naval service. Then procuring a soldier to desert is too general. His name must be given, if known, or if unknown covered by the usual allegation in such instances.

Offences against public morals.-Defective.-Under c. 157, s. 8, p. 71, ante.-See form in Archbold, 935. Sec. 140, Procedure Act, applies.

(Not printed. The forms it contains apply to s8. 30 to 96 of the Procedure Act, relating to the procedure before the magistrates.)

SECOND SCHEDULE.

FORMS OF INDICTMENT.
Murder.

County (or district) upon their oath, present that A. B., on

The Jurors for our Lady the Queen,

of

the

to wit:

day of

in the year

(or district) of

at

in the county

did feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice

aforethought, kill and murder one C. D.

County (or district)

of

to wit:

Manslaughter.

Same as last form, omitting "wilfully Jand of malice aforethought," and sub

stituting the word "slay" for the word "murder."

Bodily Harm.

County (or district)} upon their oath, present that J. B., on

The Jurors for our Lady the Queen

of

the

did feloniously administer to (or cause to be taken by) one A. B., poison (or other destructive thing) and did thereby cause bodily harm to the said A. B., with intent to kill the said A. B. (or C. D.)

Rape.

County (or district) upon their oath, present that A. B., on

The Jurors for our Lady the Queen,

will, feloniously ravished and carnally knew C. D., a woman above the age of twelve years.