if he be dead. If the amount is not realised by such attachment and sale the Court may put him in the Civil Jail for a term not exceeding six months. The Court may remit any portion of the penalty and enforce payment in part only. If before the forfeiture a surety dies his estate shall be discharged from all liability (1). All orders passed under section 514 by any Magistrate other than a Presidency Magistrate or District Magistrate shall be appealable to the District Magistrate, or, if not so appealed, may be revised by him (2). The High Conrt or a Court of Revision has no power to reduce the amount of a recognisance that may have been forfeited (3).

THE SENTENCING OF CRIMINALS.

One of the most perplexing things that comes within the sphere of a Judge's duties is the determination of what sentence should be passed on those who are found guilty before him. Knowing this, we should be cautious in criticising sentences which, on the one hand strike one as being severe, or, on the other, as inadequate. Where it is the first offence, the difficulty is necessarily enhanced. Punishment, as it is called (though the expression is not a happy one), should be corrective rather than punitive so far as the prisoner is concerned, and deterrent as regards others. And, again, it is neither desirable to add to the criminal class by sending the young to mix with old ofenders, nor is it wise, either, tɔ le a criminal, guilty of a grave offen e, go out on suspended sentence, or to be awarded such a lenient one as to lead other possible criminals to think so lightly of the crime as in effect to invite them to commit a 'similar one.

We are led to these reflections by the incidents connected with a case tried at the recent General Sessions of the City of Toronto. A medical student of about twenty-one years of age, residing in the same house as a fellow-student, opened a letter addressed to the latter, abstracted therefrom two postal notes payable to his friend, took them to the post office, forged his friend's name, and pocketed the proceeds. The moral fibre of this young man may be further indicatel by the

fact that in addition to these three crime, to which he pleaded guilty, he subsequently lent his victim five dollars, presumably part of the stolen money, and the same not being returned as promised, he dunned. his friend industriously therefor. Many of those who were present in Court at the time this case was tried were not a little surprised when the learned Judge let the prisoner go on suspended sentence. His Honour did indeed administer to him a very severe lecture, winding up with warning that if ever he came before him again he would be most severely dealt with, but after all this threat was not so very terrible, as one could easily imagine a young man beginning life in this way drifting off to some place where his record would be unknown. Whether he should appear again before the Judge is however not of present importance; but what is important to consider is-was this mode of dealing with the case on the part of the learned Judge the most desirable for the general welfare of the community? We doubt

it.

If the rule were laid down that every offender who pleads guilty to his first offence should be let go on suspended sentence, we should have very little to say. But, was the case above referred to one for the exercise of such clemency? And here it may be noted that the prisoner was, when the crimes were committed. seeking to enter a profession which most particularly demands the strictest sense of honour and integrity.

There is not in this country (as there ought to be) a place where the reclamation of criminals is the special object of attainment, or where it is possible to put such a desirable effort into practice. Our present prison system is lamentably deficient in this most important matter, and especially so in view of the fact that many offenders against the law are criminals by reason of their previous environment, or possibly as a result of heredity. The Judge had, of course, to deal with a case under the existing condition of things; but, crediting him with a most laudable desire for the future welfare of this young man, we venture to think that his treatment of the case would, on the whole, be likely to do more harm than good.

It is often said that severe sentences are not deterrent in their effect and the fact is cited that hanging for theft, etc., was not deterrent, but rather the reverse. This, however, shows a misunder

standing of the situation. It is quite true that such barbarous, sentences were not efficacious but the simple reason for that was that as then the public sentiment of that day was opposed to the law administered, and consequently it became largely a dead letter. Juries would not convict for a comparatively light offence when the result. would be death to the culprit. So far as the deterrent effect was concerned, dread of the death penalty was, in the mind of a possible criminal counterbalanced by the probability of an acquittal.

When bicycles came into use, the stealing of them became common. The Police Magistrate of the City of Toronto promptly inflicted very severe sentences on those found guilty before him. The result was that this kind of theft immediately became unpopular. In England the crime of garotting almost ceased as a result of the very stern Justice administered. In these and other cases severity worked most beneficially.

We do not forget that very wide powers have been conferred by the Parliament of Canada upon a judge by sec. 971 of the Criminal Code, added in 1901, which provides for the release upon proba tion of good conduct of any offender not previously convicted, upon the conditions referred to in the said section. The great difficulty in all such cases is the exercise of a wise discretion in view both of the possible reclamation of the offender, and of the protection of society. (Canada Law Journal for January 1905.)

HOW TO DETECT A LYING WITNESS.

How does a lawyer know when a witness is lying? And when he knows a witness is lying, how does he go about it to expose the perjury?

If all lawyers knew these two things there would no longer be good lawyers and poor lawyers, for all lawyers would be good.

Sometimes lawyers take a long chance and "guess" that a witness is deliberately lying. A story is told of Jermiah Mason, the famous New England lawyer of Daniel Webster's day. Mason was crossexamining a witness whose testimony could not be shaken. Time and again the witness repeated his statement and it never varied.

Suddenly Mason, pointing his finger straight at the witness, said in his high, impassioned voice:

"Let's see that paper you've got in your waistcoat pocket."

Taken completely by surprise, the witness mechanically drew a paper from the pocket indicated and handed it to Mason. The lawyer slowly read the exact words of the witness and called attention to the fact that they were in the handwriting of the lawyer on the other side.

"Mason, how under the sun did you know that paper was there?" asked a brother lawyer.

"Well," replied Mason, "I thought he gave that part of his testimony just as if he'd heard it, and I noticed every time he repeated it he put his hand to his waistcoat pocket and then let it fall again when he got through."

It is a startling fact that perjury in American courts is on the increase. Francis L. Wellman of the New York bar in a book on "The Art of Cross-Examination," declares that at the present time. scarcely a trial is conducted in which it does not appear in a more or less flagrant form.

It seldom happens that a witness' entire testimony is false from beginning to end. Perhaps the greater part of it is true, and that only the crucial part-the point, however, on which the whole case may turn-is wilfully false.

Then again there is the witness who is deliberately lying to shield. himself from the consequences of his own crime. This is the ugliest form of perjury. There is one great historic case of the exposure of this form of perjury, and the lawyer, who exposed it was none other than Abraham Lincoln-in the days when he was only a struggling young lawyer, tall, gaunt, and uncouth. The story is related in Judge J. W. Donovan's "Tact in court," and is doubly interesting. because it was Abraham Lincoln's first effort to defend a man accused of murder.

A man named Grayson was ac used of killing a man named Lockwood at a camp meeting. A man named Sovine claimed to have witnessed the murder. Sovine's story was so circumstantial that Grayson was indicted and narrowly escaped being lynched.

Abraham Lincoln was employed by Grayson's mother to defend
The case came to trial. Lincoln objected to none of the

her son.

jurors. He cross-examined none of the witnesses, save the last-the man Sovine, who swore that he knew the parties, saw Grayson fire the fatal shot, and saw him run away.

The evidence of guilt an identity was morally certain. When Sovine was turned over to him for cross-examination Lincoln stood up and eyed the witness in silence, without books or notes, and began the defence by these questions:

"And you were with Lockwood just before and saw the shooting?" "Yes."

"And you stood very near to them?"

"No; about twenty feet away."
"May it not have been ten feet?"

"No, it was twenty feet, or more."
"In the open field,"

"No: in the timber."

"What kind of timber?"

"Beech timber."

"Leaves on it are rather thick in August?"

"Rather."

"And you think this pistol was the one used?"

"It looks like it."

"You could see the defendant shoot-see how the barrel hung,

and all about it?"

"Yes."

"How near was this to the camp-meeting?"

"Three-quarters of a mile away."

"Where were the lights?"

"Up by the minister's stand.”

"Three-quarters of a mile away."

"Yes-I answered ye twists."

"Dia

you not see a candle there with Lockwood or Grayson. "No, what would we want a candle for?"

"How, then did you see the shooting?"

"By moonlight!" (defiantly).

"You saw this shooting at 10 o'clock at night-in beech timber, three-quarters of a mile from the lights-saw the pistol barrel-saw the man fire-saw it twenty feet away-saw it all by moonlight? Saw it nearly a mile from the camp lights?"