Property.]-The phrase in Code sec. 236 as to lotteries, is "disposing of any property," and this clause of interpretation as to "property" simply states that it includes "every kind of real and personal property." The property need not be "specific property," for it would be an easy evasion if the statute could be got rid of by designating no particular thing, although the winner would be able to exercise his choice among the available prizes offered. Taylor v. Smetten, 11 Q.B.D. at p. 212; R. v. Lorrain (1896), 2 Can. Cr. Cas. 144.

Trade combinations.]-See secs. 496, 497 and 498.

Valuable security.]-It was formerly held that the term "valuable security" meant a valuable security to the person who parted with it on the false pretence, and that the inducing a person to execute a mortgage. on his own property was therefore not obtaining a "valuable security." R. v. Brady (1866), 26 U.C.Q.B. 13; R. v. Danger, 3 Jur. N.S. 1011; but the present definition expressly includes any deed, bond, etc., which evidences title.

Defendant was indicted for forging an order for the payment of money, the order being in the following words: "John McLean, tailor, please give M. A. S (defendant) to the amount of $3.50 and by doing you will oblige me, A. McP." It was proved that the signature A. McP. was forged by the prisoner, and prisoner was convicted and sentenced. It was held that this was an order for the payment of money, and not a mere request, and the conviction was affirmed. R. v. Steel (1863), 13, U.C.C.P. 619 (following R. v. Tuke (1858), 17 U.C.Q.B. 296).

The true criterion as to whether a document is an order for payment of money or only a request, is, whether, if the instrument were genuine, and the person to whom it was directed paid it, he could recover the amount from the party by whom the order was given, or charge it to him, for if such be the case it is an order. R. v. Carter, 1 Cox 172; R. v. Ferguson, 1 Cox 241; R. v. Dawson, 3 Cox 220; R. v. Vivian, 1 Den. C.C. 35.

value.

3. For the purpose of this Act a postal card or any stamp Post card a referred to in the last preceding section shall be deemed to be chattel a chattel, and to be equal in value to the amount of the postage, rate or duty expressed on its face in words or figures or both. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 3.

4. Valuable security shall, where value is material, be Valuable deemed to be of value equal to that of the unsatisfied money, security. chattel personal, share, interest or deposit, for the securing or payment of which, or delivery or transfer or sale of which, or for the entitling or evidencing title to which, such valuable security is applicable or to that of such money or chattel personal, the payment or delivery of which is evidenced by such. valuable security. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 3.

5. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,(a) finding the indictment includes also exhibiting an Finding information and making a presentment;

indictment.

(b) having in one's possession includes not only having in Possession. one's own personal possession, but also knowingly

Joint

(i) having in the actual possession or custody of any other person, and

(ii) having in any place (whether belonging to or occupied by one's self or not) for the use or benefit of one's self or of any other person.

2. If there are two or more persons, and any one or more of

possession. them, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has or have

in other Acts.

anything in his or their custody or possession, it shall be deemed and taken to be in the custody and possession of each and all of them. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 3; 56 V., c. 32, s. 1.

Meaning of 6. In every case in which the offence dealt with in this Act expressions relates to the subject treated of in any other Act the words and expressions used herein in respect to such offence shall have the meaning assigned to them in such other Act. 55-56 V., c. 29, S. 4.

Carnal knowledge.

7. Carnal knowledge is complete upon penetration to any, even the slightest degree, and even without the emission of seed. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 266.

PART I.

GENERAL.

Application of this Act.

8. Nothing in this Act shall affect any of the laws relating This Act not to the government of His Majesty's land or naval forces. to affect 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 983.

H. M. forces.

Saskatche

9. Except in so far as they are inconsistent with the North- Application west Territories Act and amendments thereto as the same of Act to existed immediately before the first day of September, one wan, Alberta thousand nine hundred and five, the provisions of this Act and the Terextend to and are in force in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and, except in so far as inconsistent with the Yukon Act, the Yukon Territory. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 983.

Application of the Criminal Law of England.

ritories.

10. The criminal law of England, as it existed on the Criminal seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and law of England ninety-two, in so far as it has not been repealed by any Act of applicable the Parliament of the United Kingdom having force of law in to Ontario. the province of Ontario, or by any Act of the Parliament of the late province of Upper Canada, or of the province of Canada, still having force of law, or by this Act or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada, and as altered, varied, modified or affected by any such Act, shall be the criminal law of the province of Ontario. R.S., c. 144, s. 1.

The Quebec Act, 1774.]-The Criminal Law of England was introduced into the Province of Quebec by Royal Proclamation in 1763, and subsequently extended by 14 Geo. III., ch. 83 (Imp.) to what is now Ontario. After the erection of Upper Canada, now Ontario, into a separate province, the Provincial Legislature, after reciting the Imperial Act, 14 Geo. III., ch. 83, passed 40 Geo. 111., ch. 81 in July, 1800, enacted that the Criminal Law of England as it stood on the 17th September, 1792, should be the Criminal Law of Upper Canada. R. v. Malloy (1900), 4 Can. Cr. Cas. 116 (Ont.).

Champerty a criminal offence.]-Champerty is a criminal offence, and a champertous contract will not be enforced by the courts. The English

Criminal

land appli

cable to British Columbia.

champerty laws were introduced or continued in Ontario and Quebec under the Quebec Act. 1774 (Imp.). Meloche v. Deguire, 8 Can. Cr. Cas. 89; Hopkins v. Smith (1901), 1 O.L.R. 659.

Champerty and maintenance may almost be considered obsolete offences as regards criminal prosecutions therefor. The English Criminal Law Commissioners appointed to draft a Criminal Code, which however never was enacted, recommended that both offences should be abolished, it being considered by them that this law had been used vexatiously in many cases of prosecutions commenced thereunder and not persevered in. Commissioners' 5th Report, pages 34-39.

11. The criminal law of England as it existed on the ninelaw of Eng teenth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and fiftyeight, in so far as it has not been repealed by any ordinance or Act-still having the force of law-of the colony of British Columbia, or the colony of Vancouver Island, passed before the union of the said colonies, or of the colony of British Columbia passed since such union, or by this Act or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada, and as altered, varied, modified or affected by any such ordinance or Act, shall be the criminal law of the province of British Columbia. R.S.. c. 144, s. 2.

Criminal

cable to Manitoba.

Champerty.]-A bargain by which A., a stranger to B., having no interest recognized by law in a given property, agrees to help B. to recover such property in a court of justice in consideration of getting a portion of the fruits of the suit, is champerty and is an indictable offence by the common law of England. Briggs v. Fleutot, 10 B.C.R. at p. 316.

The criminal law of England on this subject was introduced into British Columbia by the statute R.S.C. 1886, ch. 144, sec. 2.

12. The criminal law of England as it existed on the law of Eng- fifteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy, land appli in so far as it is applicable to the province of Manitoba, and in so far as it has not been repealed, as to the Province, by any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or by this Act or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada, and as altered, varied, modified or affected, as to the Province, by any such Act, shall be the criminal law of the province of Manitoba. 51 V., c. 33, s. 1.

Civil remedy not suspended.

Effect of Act on Remedies.

13. No civil remedy for any act or omission shall be suspended or affected by reason that such act or omission amounts to a criminal offence. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 534.

No suspension of civil remedy for criminal act.]—This section formerly sec. 534 of the Criminal Code, 1892, has been held in Quebec not to be "criminal law" legislation but legislation dealing with civil rights and

therefore ultra vires of the Federal Parliament. Paquet v. Lavoie (1898), 6 Can. Cr. Cas. 314, 7 Que. Q.B. 277.

Semble, the establishment of the English criminal law by the Quebec Act (14 Geo. III. (Imp.), ch. 83) in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec having been effected by a legislative body having absolute jurisdiction over both civil and criminal law, it must be taken as having introduced in the Province of Quebec the English law with respect to the suspension of civil remedies for criminal wrongs.

The operation of this section is left in doubt by reason of the constitutional questions involved. Can the Dominion Parliament declare that a civil remedy shall not be suspended? Have not the Provincial Legislatures by reason of their exclusive jurisdiction as to civil rights the right to control the suspension of the civil remedy pending the criminal prosecution?

To an action, before the Code, for assault and battery defendant pleaded that before action brought the plaintiff laid an information before a magistrate charging defendant with feloniously, etc., wounding the plaintiff with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, thereby charging defendant with felony; that defendant was brought before the magistrate and committed for trial which had not yet taken place; that the subject of both the civil and criminal prosecutions was the same, and that plaintiff's civil right of action was suspended until the criminal charge was disposed of. Held, on demurrer, that the plea was good; and an order was made staying the civil action in the meantime. Taylor v. McCulloch (1885), 8 Ont. R. 309.

The former rule, excepting in the Province of Quebec, was that on grounds of public policy if it appeared on the trial of a civil action that the facts amounted to felony, the judge was bound to stop the civil proceedings and non-suit the plaintiff in order that public justice might first be vindicated by a criminal prosecution. Walsh v. Nattress, 19 U.C.C.P. 453; Livingstone v. Massey, 23 U.C.Q.B. 156; Williams v. Robinson, 20 U.C.C.P. 255; Pease v. McAloon, 1 Kerr (N.B.) 111. The civil remedy was held to be suspended until the defendant charged with the felony should be either acquitted or convicted thereof. Brown v. Dalby, 7 U.C.Q.B. 162.

14. The distinction between felony and misdemeanour is Distinction abolished, and proceedings in respect of all indictable offences, between except so far as they are herein varied, shall be conducted in felony and the same manner. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 535.

Misdemeanour practice to prevail.]—When a certain practice would have been permissible in case of misdemeanour, and not permissible in case of felony, the practice has been to apply the rule as in cases of misdemeanour, and such is the intention of the Code. R. v. Fox (1903), 7 Can. Cr. Cas. 457.

Prisoner's testimony as witness at another trial-Consent of prisoner's counsel.]-The distinction between felony and misdemeanour having been abolished, the consent of counsel for the accused which before the Code would have been effective in misdemeanours only, is now effective although the offence charged was formerly a felony. And evidence given on the trial of another person including the evidence of the prisoner then called as a witness, may with the consent of the prisoner's counsel be admitted in evidence both for and against the prisoner. R. v. Fox, 7 Can. Cr. Cas. 457 (Ont.).

Felony or misdemeanour.]—A person committed for trial in respect of an indictable offence which was a felony before the Criminal Code, 1892, is 2 CRIM. CODE.

misdemeanour abol

ished.