notice, unless it be on a day appointed for his appear ance. (a) Where a party accused of perjury has been arraigned and pleaded not guilty, and no day certain has been fixed for the trial, and no forfeiture of his bail has been declared, the mere failure of the party, when called upon to answer in the term subsequent to that in which he was arraigned, cannot operate as a forfeiture of such bail. (b) If an offence is bailable, and the party, at the time of his apprehension, is unable to obtain immediate sureties, he may, at any time, on producing proper persons as sureties, be liberated from confinement. (c) A person, accused of theft, had given a recognizance of bail, but after the finding of the indictment against him, by the Grand Jury, and before trial, had absconded. A rule nisi, to enter up judgment on the recognizance, was obtained, on an affidavit of the Clerk of the Crown, of the fact of a recognizance having been entered into by the defendant, of the signature of the Justices of the Peace thereto, and its return into the Supreme Court, and the non-appearance of the party to plead to the indictment. A copy of this rule, together with a copy of the affidavit, was served on each of the defendants:— Held, that the rule nisi was proper, instead of a proceeding by scire facias, and that such judgment might be properly entered on an affidavit of the service of the rule nisi therefor on the bail, and their failing to shew cause. (d) Where bail entered into a recognizance, conditioned for the appearance of their principal to answer a charge (a) Reg. v. Croteau, 9 L. C. R. 67. (b) Atty. Genl. v. Beaulieu, 3 L. C. J. 117. (c) Ex parte Blossom, 10 L. C. J. 68, per Meredith, J. (d) Reg. v. Thompson, 2 Thomson, 9; affirmed by Reg. v. Cudihey, 1 Oldright, 701. of assault with intent to commit rape, and the only bill found against the accused was for the more serious offence of rape, and his recognizance was estreated for his non appearance to answer that charge, a rule nisi was made absolute for their relief from the estreated recognizance, for they did not become bail for the appearance of theaccused, to answer a charge of rape, and, therefore, his nonappearance to answer that charge was no breach of the recognizance. (a) In an ordinary recognizance of bail, on an indictable charge, the accused is not bound to appear unless a bill be found against him. Where, therefore, the accused was called, though the Grand Jury had not, owing to absence of witnesses, an opportunity of finding a bill, and the recognizance was estreated, a rule was made absolute for the relief of the bail. (b) Defendant, having entered into a recognizance to appear at a certain Assizes, attended until the last day, when he left, assuming, as no indictment had been found, that the charge against him of a breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act was not intended to be prosecuted. He was, however, called, and his recognizance estreated. The Court, under the circumstances, relieved him and his sureties, under the Con. Stats, U. C., c. 117, s. 11, on payment of costs, and on his entering into a new recognizance to appear at the following Assizes. (c) It is no ground for discharging the estreat of a recogniz ance of bail that the accused did not receive from the Justice, who took the recognizance, the notice directed to be given by the 7 Wm. 4, c. 10, s. 8. (d) When a recognizance is entered into for the appear (a) Reg. v. Wheeler, 1 U. C. L. J. N. S. 272. ance of the accused in the Court of Queen's Bench, it is the duty of the Judges of that Court to estreat the recog nizance in the event of forfeiture. (a) Where a prisoner charged with felony had been admitted to bail upon an order of a Judge in Chambers, and an application was subsequently made to rescind such order, and to recommit the prisoner to gaol, on the ground that he had not been committed for trial, at the time such order was granted, being in custody only under a warrant of remand, and also upon the ground that the bail put in was fictitious :-Held, that a Judge in Chambers had power to make the order asked for; that when bail are insufficient or fictitious better sureties may be ordered, and, the sureties in this case appearing to be fictitious, the order was conditional upon the failure of the prisoner to find new sureties within a specified time. (b) An application for bail must be made upon affidavits entitled "In the Queen's Bench," verifying copies of the depositions. (c) The affidavits should be accompained by a certified copy of the commitment. (d) Where a prisoner makes application to a Judge in Chambers, to be admitted to bail to answer a charge for an indictable offence, under the 32 & 33 Vic. c. 30, s. 61, the copies of information, examination, etc., may be received, though certified by the County Crown Attorney and not by the committing Justice. Under ss. 38 and 58 of this Statute, the committing Magistrate has still power to certify copies of the information, examination and depositions close under his hand and seal. (e) The institution of Grand Juries, if not carefully (a) Reg. v. Croteau, 9 L. C. R. 67. (b) Reg. v. Mason, 5 U. C. L. J. N. S. 205; 5 U. C. P. R. 125. (c) Reg. v Barthelmy, 1 E. & B. 8; Dears. 60. (d) Arch. Cr. Pldg. 89. (e) Reg. v. Chamberlain, 1 U. C. L. J. N. S. 157; ib. 142. See also Con. Stats. U. C. c. 106, s. 9. guarded, is liable to abuse, as it furnishes facilities for fraud and oppression by giving an opportunity to a wicked person to go before a secret tribunal, and, without notice to the party accused, to get a bill of indictment found against him, which, whether true or false, may be used as an engine of extortion; further proceedings may be abandoned, if the prosecutor can be bribed so that Justice is defeated, if the defendant be guilty, or an infamous wrong may be inflicted upon him if innocent.The 32 & 33 Vic., c. 29, s. 28, was passed with a view to suppress vexatious proceedings of this description. It is not necessary that the performance of any of the conditions mentioned in this Statute should be averred in the indictment, or proved before the petty jury. (a) When the indictment is preferred by the direction, or with the consent in writing, of a Judge of one of the Superior Courts, it is for the Judge, to whom the application is made for such direction or consent, to decide what materials ought to be brought before him, and it is not necessary to summon the party accused, or to bring him before the Judge. (b) Where three persons were committed for conspiracy, and afterwards the Solicitor-General, acting under this Statute, directed a bill to be preferred against a fourth person who had not been committed, and all four were indicted together for the same conspiracy, such a course was held to be unobjectionable. (c) It seems that, where, in a civil action, the jury find a party guilty of a crime, as where in an action on a policy of insurance against fire arson is set up in the plea, and the jury find the plaintiff guilty thereof, the plaintiff may (a) Knowlden v Reg., 5 B. & S. 532; 33 L. J. (M. C.) 219. (b) Reg. v. Bray, 3 B. & S. 255; 32 L. J. (M. C.) 11. (c) Knowlden v. Reg. supra; Arch. Cr. Pldg. 5. be tried on this finding for the criminal offence without the finding of the Grand Jury. (a) The evidence offered to a Grand Jury is evidence of accusation only. It is to be given and heard in secret according to the oath administered. The accused has no right to appear before, or be heard by, the Grand Jury either for the purpose of examining his accuser or of offering exculpatory evidence. Evidence before a Grand Jury can only be received, under the sanction of an oath, so that if any false statement be made, the person may be punished. The oath may be administered by the foreman; but it can only be administered, when the jury are assembled as such. The law requires that twelve members should be present for the purpose of any enquiry, and twelve of them must assent to any accusation. When a charge is presented to a Grand Jury, they should consider first whether the accused is capable of committing the crime, and this involves the criminal liability of infants, persons non compotes mentis, married women, etc. A reasonable conclusion only is required, the rest is for the jury on the trial. They must have reasonable evidence of the corpus delicti, and that the accused is the guilty person. The intent laid or charged against the accused should clearly appear, either expressly or by necessary implication, from the circumstances. (b) The record of a conviction for murder set out, in the caption, that the indictment was found at a general session of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, before the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, duly assigned, and under, and by virtue of, the Statute, in that behalf Richardson v. Can. W. F. Ins. Co. 17 U. C. C. P. 343, per J. Wilson, J. |