orders, on a crowd of people, in the streets of a city, such conduct being insubordinate, unsoldier-like, and to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, he must first be held to answer before the constituted tribunals in the colony proceeding under the common law, before a military court, under the Mutiny Act, and the Articles of War can legally take cognizance of the charge. (a) A volunteer is liable, by 29 & 30 Vic., c. 12, to be tried by a Court Martial for misconduct while present at a parade of his corps, though not actually serving in the ranks at the time. (b) Piracy. This offence at common law consists in committing those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high sers which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there. (c) It was not felony which was triable by jury at common law, but has been made so by the 28 Hy. 8, c. 15, and 11 & 12 Wm. 3, c. 7. (d) These two Statutes may, perhaps, be treated as in force here, being part of the law of England at the time of its introduction. In Canada, piracy is, in fact, felony committed within the jurisdiction of any Court of Admiralty; for any felony punishable under the laws of Canada, if committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts, may be dealt with, enquired of, tried, and determined in the same manner as any other felony committed within that jurisdiction. (e) The Imp. Stat. 12 & 13 Vic., c. 96, extends to the Dominion, and makes further and better provision for the trial of piracy than is made in and by the two former Statutes, and may, perhaps, to some extent, supersede them. Commissions were required for the trial of offences (e) 32 & 33 Vic., c. 29, s. 136; see also 12 & 13 Vic., c. 96, s. 1. under the earlier Statutes, but it is conceived that the later enactment is in itself a sufficient authority for the trial of these offences, and that commissions are now unnecessary. The material enquiry in cases of piracy is as to the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts. The Admiralty jurisdiction of England extends over British vessels, not only when they are sailing on the high seas, but also when they are in the rivers of a foreign territory, at a place below bridges where the tide ebbs and flows, and where great ships go, although the municipal authorities of the foreign country may be entitled to concurrent jurisdiction. And all seamen, whatever their nationality, serving on board British vessels, are amenable to the provisions of British law. (a) An American citizen, serving on board a British ship, caused the death of another American citizen, serving on board the same ship, under circumstances amounting to manslaughter, the ship at the time being in the river Garonne, within French territory, at a place below bridges, where the tide ebbed and flowed, and great ships went:-Held that the ship was within the Admiralty jurisdiction, and that the prisoner was rightly tried and convicted at the Central Criminal Court. (b) Where, on a trial for maliciously wounding on the high seas, it was stated by three witnesses that the vessel on board which the offence was alleged to have been committed was a British ship, of Shields, and that she was sailing under the British flag, but no proof was given of the register of the vessel, or of the ownership:-Held that the Court had jurisdiction over the offence-first, because the evidence was sufficient to prove that the (a) Reg. v. Anderson, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 161, 38 L. J. (M. C.) 12; and see Reg. v. Lopez, 1 Dears B. 1 C. C. 525; Reg. v. Lesley, 1 Bell, C. C. 220. (b) Reg. v. Anderson, supra; and see Keg. v. Allen, 1 Mood. C. C. 494. vessel was a British vessel; secondly, because, even if it had appeared that the vessel was not registered, the Court would still have jurisdiction, as there is rothing in the Merchant Shipping Act to take away that jurisdicsion, and also by reason of s. 106 of the latter Act, 1854, which provides that, as regards the punishment of offences committed on board such a ship, she shall be dealt with in the same manner as if she were a recognised British ship. (a) The prisoner was indicted for stealing three chests of tea from a vessel, which sailed from London, on the high seas, when the vessel was lying off Wampa, in China. The vessel lay twenty or thirty miles from the sea. No evidence was given of the flowing of the tide, or otherwise, where the vessel lay-Held, on a case reserved, that the offence was within the Admiralty jurisdiction. (b) Where the sea flows in between two points of land in England, a straight imaginary line being drawn from one point to the other, the Courts of common law have jurisdiction of all offences committed within that line, though it is said the Admiralty has concurrent jurisdiction within such line. (c) The great inland lakes of Canada are within the Admiralty jurisdiction, and by the Imp. Act 12 & 13 Vic., c. 95, there is authority in our Courts and Magistrates to take cognizance of an offence committed in the lakes, although in American waters, in the same manner as if committed on the high seas. The power may be exercised by all Magistrates in the colony, as if the offence had been committed in the waters within the limits of the colony, and within the limits of the local jurisdiction (a) Reg. v. Sebery, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 264, 39 L. J. (M. C.) 133. (b) Rex v. Allen, 7 C. & P. 664; Reg. v. Sharpe, 5 U. C. P. R. 138, per A. Wilson, J. (c) Ib. 139, per A. Wilson, J.; Rex v. Bruce, R. & R. 243. of the Courts of criminal justice of the colony; (a) for there is nothing in the Statute to give any particular functionary jurisdiction, or to make the offence of a local nature, and, therefore, any Magistrate in the Province may act. (b) If a robbery be committed on lakes, harbours, ports, etc., in foreign countries, the Court of Admiralty indisputably has jurisdiction. (c) A British Court has no jurisdiction to punish a foreigner for an offence committed on the high seas, in a foreign ship, against a British subject. (d) The 32 & 33 Vic., c. 20, s. 9, makes provision for the trial in Canada of offences amounting to murder or manslaughter committed upon the sea. (e) Customs and Excise Offences.-These offences are now regulated by various Statutes. (f) The 31 Vic., c. 6, s. 80, provides that persons committing certain offences, with regard to warehoused goods, shall incur the penalties imposed on persons for smuggling. By s. 75 of the same Act, smuggling is made a misdemeanor, punishable by a penalty not exceeding $200, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or by both. An indictment will not lie under s. 80 for the misdemeanor created by s. 75, for the 80th section does not declare that the parties offending, etc., shall be deemed guilty of the misdemeanor created by the 75th, and the clause cannot be extended to the creation of a new crime by implication. (g) It is unnecessary to allege, in the indictment for offences against this Act, that the warehouse therein referred to is a Customs warehouse, or one duly appointed and (a) Reg. v. Sharpe, 5 U. C. P. R. 135. (b) Ib. 140, per Wilson, J. (c) Ib. 139, per Wilson, J. (d) Reg. v. Kinsman, 1 James, 62. (e) See also c. 29, s. 9. (f) See as to customs 31 Vic., cs. 5, 6, 7, 43 & 44; also 33 Vic. c. 9, and 34 Vic. cs. 10 and 11. (g) Reg. v. Bathgate, 13 L. C. J. 299. established according to the provisions of law; for the meaning of the word "warehouse" is clearly defined by the Customs Act, and it would be matter of proof as to whether the building alluded to comes within that definition or not. Nor is it necessary to allege that the goods had been marked and stamped in accordance with the requirements of the Act, for the security of the revenue of Canada, nor that the goods had previously been duly entered for warehousing, in accordance with the provisions of law, nor to allege by whom the goods were kept in the warehouse, for not one of these statements is required by the Statute; and, moreover, in official matters, all things are presumed to have been properly done. An allegation that the goods were fraudulently removed implies sufficiently that they were not legally cleared from, etc. (a) On a Statute somewhat similar to the 31 Vic., c. 6, s. 91 (using, however, the words "information on oath shall be given"), it was held that, to justify the breaking open of a building, there should have been, first, a written information on oath; and, second, the actual presence of the Justice at the breaking, so that the parties may understand the demand for admittance comes from the Justice, by virtue of his legal authority, and magisterial character. (b) The grounds for holding a written information necessary were: the object of the information being to authorize the forcible breaking of a man's house, something is required to protect the Justice if sued for the entry jointly with the officer; and the person, whose house is broken into, is entitled to know distinctly what the information was on which the Justice acted; and proper evidence is (a) Reg. v. Bathgate, supra. |