British waters, and under the direction of such officer, towed the prize out of British waters for the ordinary towage remuneration, which was afterwards paid by the Consul-General of the belligerent state in London, was held not liable to condemnation, though the master, who was one of the owners of the steam tug, had reasonable cause to believe that the prize was a prize of war, as it could not be said to have been employed in the military or naval service of the belligerent state. (k) It would seem, however, that a ship employed in the service of a foreign belligerent state to lay down a submarine cable, the main object of which is, and is known to be, the subserving the military operations of the belligerent state, is employed in the military or naval service of that state, within the meaning of the Act. () When a cause is instituted against a ship in the Admiralty Court, for an offence under this Act, the court may, with the consent of the Crown, order the ship to be released on bail. (m)

Seducing soldiers or sailors to desert.-The Con. Stat. U. C., c. 100, has been repealed, and the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 25, is now the governing enactment on this subject. The Imp. Mutiny Act did not override the Con. Stat. U. C., c. 100; but the latter was passed in aid of the former, and was in force, notwithstanding the Imp. Mutiny Act. The two statutes were construed as if they had been both Canadian, or both English Acts. (n) The punishment by fine and imprisonment imposed by the Provincial Act, however, stood abolished as long as the Mutiny Act was in force, and the imprisonment could in no case exceed six calendar months.

The power of trial by the Court of Oyer and Terminer, under the Con. Stat. U. C., c. 100, was not taken away by the Mutiny Act. It was, therefore, held no objection that a defendant had been tried by a Court of Oyer and Terminer, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, and a fine of

(k) The Gauntlet, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec. 381.

(1) The International, L. R 3 Ad. & Ec. 321. (m) The Gauntlet, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec. 319.

(n) Røg. v. Sherman, 17 U. C. C. P. 168, per J. Wilson, J.; 169, per 4. Wilson, J.

10s. imposed; for this was merely a nominal compliance with the statute, and the court had power to pass the proper judgment, if an improper one had been given. (0)

Although the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 25, in terms gives no power of trial to a Court of Oyer and Terminer, yet section 5 of that statute, by making every offence against it a misdemeanor and punishable as such, would seem to continue the jurisdiction over such cases in that tribunal. The offender

may also be convicted in a summary manner before any two justices of the peace, on the evidence of one or more credible witness or witnesses, etc. Nothing in the Act shall be construed to prevent any person being prosecuted, convicted, and punished, under any Act of the Imperial Parliament in force in Canada. (p)

The defendant was indicted under the Con. Stat. U. C., c. 100, s. 2, and convicted of receiving and concealing a deserter from the Royal Navy. The Naval Discipline (Imp.) Act, 29 & 30 Vic., c. 109, s. 25, authorizes a summary conviction before magistrates for this offence; but the 101st section expressly preserves the power of any court, of ordinary civil or criminal jurisdiction, with respect to any offence mentioned in the Act punishable by common or statute law therefore, a defendant can be indicted and properly convicted under the Provincial Act. (q) Where an indictment charged that the defendant did receive, conceal, or assist "one W., a deserter from the navy," the court inclined to think that this was not sufficiently certain or precise; for although acts which would prove concealment must involve receiving, and still more certainly assisting, yet there might be acts of assistance quite apart from either concealment or receiving. (r) The Mutiny Act of 1867, 30 Vic., c. 13, has no applicability to the above case. The provisions of that Act

(0) Reg. v. Sherman, supra, 166-172; Daw v. Metro. Board Co. 12 C. B. N. S. 161; 8 Jur. N. S. 1040.

(p) See also 34 Vic., c. 32; 33 Vic., c. 19; and 36 Vic., c. 58.

(g) Reg. v. Patterson, 27 U. C. Q. B. 142.

(r) Ibid.

relate to soldiers, and to others only in regard to their conduct towards those who are soldiers within the meaning of the Act. (s)

A warrant of commitment, in which it was charged that the prisoner, on the 20th June, 1864, “and on divers other days and times," at the city of Kingston, did unlawfully attempt to persuade one James Hewitt, a soldier in Her Majesty's service, to desert, was held bad; for it was impossible to say, upon reading the warrant, how many offences he had committed, or how the punishment was awarded for each specific offence; and if the prisoner were brought up again, he would be unable to say whether he had been tried or not, for he could not tell for which attempt he had already been imprisoned. In this case the court held also that there was no conviction to sustain the warrant of commitment, nor, in fact, any conviction to sustain an imprisonment at all; for if the very words were used in the commitment which were cited in the alleged conviction, the commitment could not be sustained. (t)

When a soldier commits felony, by firing, without 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. (u)

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. (v)

Section 125 of the Imperial Statute 36 Vic., c. 129, does not modify or limit sec. 124 so as to restrict the application

(8) Reg. v. Patterson, U. C. Q. B. 144, per Draper, C. J.

(t) Re McGinnes, 1 U. C. L. J. N. S. 15.

(u) Ex parte McCulloch, 4 L. C. R. 467.

(v) Ex parte Rickaby, 17 L. C. R. 270.

of that Act in relation to ships in the merchant service of foreign countries to the offence of desertion only, but the whole provisions of the Act apply to such foreign vessels, so far as is consistent with existing treaties between Great Britain and foreign countries. (w)

Piracy. This offence at common law consists in committing those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there. (x) It was not a felony triable by jury at common law, but was made so by the 28 Hy. VIII., c. 15, and 11 & 12 Wm. III., c. 7. (y) 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, inquired of, tried, and determined in the same manner as any other felony committed within that jurisdiction. (z)

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 under the earlier statutes, but it is conceived that the latter enactment is in itself a sufficient authority for the trial of these offences, and that commissions are now unnecessary. By that statute jurisdiction is given to the colonial courts to try offences cognizable in the Admiralty Court of England, so that in this country the material inquiry 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

(w) Ex parte Johansen, 18 L. C. J. 164.

(x) Russ. Cr. 144.

(y) Ibid.

(z) 32 & 33 Vic., c. 29, s. 136; see also 12 & 13 Vic., c. 96, s. 1.

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, causing 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. It was held that the ship was within the Admiralty jurisdiction, and that the prisoner was rightly tried and convicted at the Central Criminal Court. (b)

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. It was nevertheless decided that the court had jurisdiction over the offence-first, because the evidence was sufficient to prove that the 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 nothing in the Merchant Shipping Act to take away that jurisdiction, 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 recognized British ship. (c)

The prisoner was indicted for stealing three chests of tea

(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 Reg. v. Allen, 1 Mood. C. C. 494. (c) Reg. v. Seberg, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 264; 39 L. J. (M. C.) 133.