the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the same."

If the perjury took place in an answer to a bill in equity, an examined copy of the bill must be put in, and the answer itself produced.

If it took place upon the hearing of an information before justices of the peace, if the information were in writing, it must be produced, or at least an examined copy of it proved; and if the statute on which it was framed require it to be upon oath, it must be proved that it was duly sworn to. But if it were not in writing, then of course parol evidence may be given of it. But the conviction upon the information is not evidence in such a case; R. v. Goodfellow et al., Car. & M. 569; unless it recite the information, and in that case it is evidence of the information. 5 Car. & P. 38. See ante, p. 142.

If the perjury took place in the course of an appeal to a court of quarter sessions, it seems that the record must be made up, and it or an examined copy of it given in evidence. Where the sessions book was produced in such a case, but the clerk of the peace said that he would have made up the record on parchment if it had been bespoken, Parke, J., refused to receive the book as evidence. R. v. Ward, 6 Car. & P. 366. But on the other hand where the entry in the sessions book had a regular caption, and was in the present tense, and in every other respect as a record, and it was proved that no other record ever was made up, the court held that the book was legal evidence of the proceedings and order. R. v. Yeovley, 8 Law J. 9 m. Ante, p. 142.

If the perjury took place in the course of a suit in the ecclesiastical court, the pendency of the suit is sufficiently proved by producing the original allegation of the parties from the registrar's office, signed by their respective advocates, proof being given of the advocates' signatures, and that they were advocates of the court. R. v. Turner, 2 Car. § K. 732.

Where the perjury is assigned upon an affidavit, the affidavit must be produced, and the defendant's signature to it proved.

2. It must be proved (if the court will not take judicial cognizance of it) that the court or person before whom the false statement was made, had jurisdiction of the matter in which it was received, and had authority to administer the oath. If the proceeding were in the superior courts, no evidence of its jurisdiction need be given, for the reason mentioned ante, p. 594; but it is otherwise with respect to an inferior court, unless the jurisdiction be defined by some public Act of parliament. As to the power to administer an oath, we have seen (ante, p. 594) that all judges and persons

having authority "to hear, receive, and examine evidence,” have authority to administer an oath to the witnesses. 144 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 16. In the case of an affidavit sworn before a commissioner, it is sufficient for the commissioner to prove that he acts as such. See ante, p. 595.

3. That the oath was administered to, and taken by the defendant. This may be proved by any person who was present at the time; except in cases where the false matter is stated by way of deposition in writing, as in answers to bills or interrogatories in equity, affidavits, and depositions before magistrates, where proof of the signature of the officer or justice to the jurat, and of the defendant's signature to the instrument, are conclusive evidence of the defendant's having been sworn to it. And where the jurat to an affidavit, made in the court of Queen's Bench, was "sworn in open court, Westminster Hall, the 10th day of June, 1846," and was signed with the words "by the court," by one of the masters of that court, proof that the words "by the court" were in the master's hand-writing, with proof of the signature of the defendant, were holden by Erle, J., to be good evidence of the affidavit, and that the defendant was duly sworn to it. R. v. Turner, 2 Car. & K. 732. If the affidavit be signed by a marksman, the jurat should state that the affidavit was read over to him and that he appeared perfectly to understand the same, in which case the court will give credit to the jurat, without further proof, except perhaps proof of identity; but if the jurat do not express it, the fact must be proved, and Littledale, J., in such a case said he should have a difficulty in receiving the evidence of any person but the officer before whom the affidavit was sworn, to that fact. R. v. Hailey, Ry. & M. 94. Where a deposition before a magistrate is given in evidence, the court will not receive evidence of any other matter stated by the defendant at the same time, and which is not contained in the deposition. R. v. Wylde, 6 Car. & P. 380.

4. The matter sworn. The whole matter set out in the indictment as sworn must be proved to have been sworn, although perjury be assigned only on a portion of it. R. v. Leefe, 2 Camp. 134. It is not necessary to prove it literally, but it must be proved substantially. Id. In answers to bills in equity and interrogatories, in affidavits and depositions, the matter sworn appears upon the face of the written instrument, and is proved by proving that, as above mentioned. And if there be any variance between the statement and the proof, the indictment may be amended. Ante, p. 100. R. v. Newton, 1 Car. & K. 469. But in other cases where the evidence is given viva voce, the matter sworn may be proved by any person who was present and heard it, and can speak to it from

memory, or from having made a memorandum of it at the time, or shortly afterwards and whilst it was fresh in his memory. But the judge, or the chairman of a court of quarter sessions, before whom the evidence was given, shall not be called as a witness to prove it. R. v. Gazard, 8 Car. &

P. 595.

5. The assignments of perjury, or some one of them must be proved; and the matter proved to be false must appear material in the judicial proceeding in which it was stated. All the facts of the case in perjury, the taking of the oath, the facts deposed to all except the falsity of the statement, may be proved by a single witness; 2 Hawk. c. 46, s. 10; but the falsity of the fact the defendant is charged to have sworn to, must be proved by two witnesses, or at least by one witness and circumstances so confirmatory of his testimony as to be equivalent to the testimony of another; for otherwise there would be merely oath against oath. Where the defendant swore that he paid all the debts proved under his bankruptcy except a debt to A. and another to B., and upon an an indictment against him for perjury, C. proved that he proved a debt and that it was not paid, and D. and several other creditors proved the like: this was holden to be insufficient, for the non-payment of each debt should be proved by two witnesses. R. v. Parker, Car. & M. 639. But where the defendant was indicted for swearing that one Prosser came to his house at seven o'clock in the morning of a certain day, and that they walked together to Worcester, where they arrived at ten o'clock, and that Prosser was never out of his sight the whole of that time; and in the proof of the perjury, one witness proved that she saw Prosser at A. at half-past eight on that morning, and another witness swore that he saw the defendant, on foot, at nine o'clock on that morning at B., which was six miles distant from A.; this was objected to as there were not two witnesses to each of the facts proved: but Patteson, J., held it to be sufficient; that although it was necessary to have two witnesses to prove an assignment of perjury, it was not necessary to have two witnesses to every fact constituting such assignment. R. v. Roberts, 2 Car. & K. 607. Where perjury was assigned upon the affidavit of an attorney, in showing cause against a rule to refer his bill to be taxed, and the falsity was proved by one witness, and it was proposed to put in the defendant's bill of costs, to show an admission in it to the same effect; but this was objected to, as the bill, not being an oath, was not equivalent to the oath of a second witness: but Ld. Denman, C. J., held it to be quite sufficient, and that even a letter of the defendant, contradictory of the statement in his affidavit, would be sufficient to dispense with the necessity of a second witness. R. v. Mayhew, 6 Car. & P. 315. So,

where the defendant was indicted for perjury in his evidence before a committee of the House of Lords, and it was proved by one witness that he had recently given evidence directly to the contrary before a committee of the House of Commons: this was holden to be sufficient. R. v. Knill, 5 B. § A. 929 n. Where the defendant was indicted for perjury, in making a charge on oath against J. S., in which he swore that he saw him commit an unnatural offence, and saw the flap of his trousers down; and in proof of the perjury, J. S. proved the charge to be false, and his brother proved that at the time mentioned J. S. had been absent from him only three minutes, and that the trousers he then had on (and which were produced) had no flap: Patteson, J., held it to be sufficient, and the defendant was convicted; and the judges held the conviction to be right. R. v. Gardiner, 2 Moody, 95. But if the evidence be confirmatory of the witness in some slight particulars only, it will not be sufficient. R. v. Yates, Car. § M. 132. If it appear that the witnesses are interested in proving the perjury, it is no objection whatever to their competency: 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85, 8. 1, ante, p. 151; it goes merely to their credit.

The evidence or statement on which the perjury is assigned, must appear, or be proved, to be material to the judicial proceeding in which it was given. See ante, p.

Subornation of Perjury, &c.

By stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 21, "in every indictment for subornation of perjury,—or for corrupt bargaining or contracting with any person to commit wilful and corrupt perjury,

or for inciting, causing, or procuring any person unlawfully, wilfully, falsely, fraudulently, deceitfully, maliciously, or corruptly to take, make, sign, or subscribe any oath, affirmation, declaration, affidavit, deposition, bill, answer, notice, certificate, or other writing,-it shall be sufficient, wherever such perjury or other offence aforesaid shall have been actually committed, to allege the offence of the person who actually committed such perjury or other offence in the manner hereinbefore mentioned, (s. 20, ante, p. 594,) and then to allege that the defendant unlawfully, wilfully, and corruptly did cause and procure the said person the said offence, in manner and form aforesaid, to do and commit;-and wherever such perjury or other offence aforesaid shall not have been actually committed, it shall be sufficient to set forth the substance of the offence charged upon the defendant, without setting forth or averring any of the matters or things herein-before (s. 20, ante, p. 594,) rendered unnecessary to be set forth or averred in the case of wilful and corrupt perjury."

SECTION VI.

Nuisance.

Indictment for carrying on an Offensive Trade near a Highway.

The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of the taking of this inquisition, near unto the dwelling-houses of divers liege subjects of our Lady the Queen, and also near unto a certain public and common highway, in the parish of in the county of -, for all the subjects of our said Lady the Queen, with coaches, carriages, horses, waggons, carts, goods, chattels, and merchandizes, to go, return, and pass at their will and pleasure, unlawfully and injuriously did kill and cause to be killed one hundred sheep, and the excrements, blood, entrails, and other filth coming from the said sheep, did then and on the said other days and times cause and permit to lie, be, and remain on the said public and common highway for a long space of time, to wit, for the space of one week, whereby divers noisome and unwholsome smells, from the said excrements, blood, entrails, and other filth, then and on the said other days and times did arise, so that the air was then and on the said other days and times greatly corrupted and infected: to the great damage and common nuisance, not only of all the liege subjects of our Lady the Queen near the same place inhabiting, being, and residing, but also of all the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, going and returning, passing and repassing, along, by, and through the said public and common highway, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. [See 4 Went. 224. Where the nuisance is of a permanent nature, it is usual, and indeed prudent, to add a count for continuing it, if you are not certain of being able to prove that the defendant first created it.

Misdemeanor; fine or imprisonment, or both.

Evidence.

To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove the nuisance as laid. Erecting buildings near a highway, and near to the dwelling-houses of several persons, and there manufacturing the acid spirit of sulphur, whereby the air was