2ND EDIT. REVISED STATUTES 1906 REMARKS to six months' imprisonment, or to a fine of fifty dollars, or to both. Added. Ordinary ballet-dancing in the customary costume is not an immoral or indecent play or performance within the meaning of this section. The word "indecent" has no fixed legal meaning, and it devolves upon the prosecution in a charge of presenting an indecent theatrical performance to affirmatively prove that the performance in question was of a depraving tendency. (12) A provincial legislature has jurisdiction to legislate concerning matters of police regulation of public morals; but, in so far as the same subject is dealt with by the Dominion Parliament, the Dominion legislation will prevail. (13) Sec. 180. Sec. 209. Posting obscene publications. Unchanged. Sec. 183a. Sec. 210. Burden of proof in seduction. Unchanged. Sec. 181. Sec. 211. Seduction of girls between fourteen and sixteen. Unchanged. Sec. 212. Seduction under promise of marriage. Unchanged. Sec. 182. Unchanged. Sec. 184. Sec. 214. Seducing female passengers on vessels. Unchang d. Where a seduction under promise of marriage has taken place and the illicit intercourse between the parties is continued, upon renewals of promise, for more than a year before the commencement of the prosecution, a prosecution for the original seduction is barred, (under section 1140 (c), post), and a conviction is not warranted as for a subsequent seduction within the year, as the girl is not then of "previously chaste character." The term "previously chaste character," in section 212, is not equivalent to previously chaste reputation, but refers to the actual moral status of the girl. (14) Sec. 186. Sec. 215. Parent or guardian procuring defilement of girl or woman. Unchanged. Sec. 185. Sec. 216. Procuring defilement of women or girls. Unchanged. Sec. 187. Sec. 217. Householders permitting defilement of girls on their premises. Unchanged, in meaning. Upon a charge of procuring a girl to come to Canada from abroad. with intent that she may become an inmate of a brothel in Canada the acts of inducement must be shewn to have been committed in Canada, in order to give jurisdiction to a Canadian court, unless the accused is a British subject. (14a). (12) R. v. McAuliffe, 8 Can. Cr. Cas., 21. Sec. 188. Sec. 218. Conspiracy to defile. REMARKS Unchanged. Sec. 190. Sec. 220. Prostitution of Indian Women. Unchanged. NUISANCES. Unchanged. Sec. 191. Sec. 221. Common Nuisance defined. Sec. 192. Sec. 222. Criminal Common Nuisances. Sec. 193. Sec. 223. Non-criminal common nuisances. Unchanged. A street railway commits a common nuisance by systematically moving electric cars reversely on a public street without fenders and gongs or other signalling appliances being placed at the rear of the cars, while being so operated, and thereby endangering the lives and safety of the public. An indictable nuisance, under the above sections may consist in the mode of using or controlling anything, and it is not essential to the offence that there should be anything dangerous in the thing itself. (15) An indictment for a nuisance in obstructing a public highway is insufficient to charge a criminal offence under the above sections, if it does not allege injury to the person of some one; and personal injury is not to be inferred from a count which states that "actual" injury has been occasioned to an individual named. (15a). Sec. 194. Sec. 224. Knowingly selling articles unfit for human food. Unchanged. ADULTERATION. At pages 176-190 of the Author's second edition of the Criminal Code, some of the principal provisions of the old Adulteration Act (R. S. C., 1886, c. 107), and of the old Canned Goods Act (R. S. C., 1886, c. 105), and of their respective amendments are set out and annotated. These Acts and their respective amendments are now repealed and replaced by the new Adulteration Act (R. S. (1908), c. 133), and the new Canned Goods Act (R. S. (1906), c. 134); which are now set forth and annotated in the Appendix to the present Supplement. Sec. 195. Sec. 225. Common Bawdy House defined. Unchanged. This section enlarges the meaning of the term "common bawdy house," and a conviction for keeping "a disorderly house, that is to say, a bawdy house," should shew further particulars of the offence by specifying the subject of the keeping for purposes of prostitution, i. e. whether a "house," a room, "" set of rooms a other "place," so as to come within the definition of the soction. (156) 66 (15) R. v. Toronto Ry. Co., 10 Ont. L. R., 26; 10 Can. Cr. Cas., 106. (15a) R. v. Reynolds, 11 Can. Cr. Cas., 312. (156) R. v. Shepherd. 6 Can. Cr. Cas., 463. or 2ND EDIT. REVISED STATUTES 1906 REMARKS By the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 1907, this section, 225, has been repealed and re-enacted as follows: "225. Α common bawdy house is a house room or set of rooms or place of any kind kept for purposes of prostitution, or occupied or resorted to by one or more persons for such purposes." A woman reputed to be a prostitute living alone in a house and receiving men for the purpose of acts of prostitution with herself alone, but not allowing other women to resort there for a similar purpose is not thereby guilty of keeping a bawdy house. (16) A prosecution against the keeper of a common bawdy-house may be brought either by indictment or under the Summary Trials procedure, or the keeper may be charged as a vagrant under the Summary convictions procedure; and neither the provision for summary trial nor that for summary conviction abrogates the right of the Crown to bring an indictment. The different methods of procedure with the varying penalties, dependent upon the class of tribunal selected, are not inconsistent but are alternative. (17) Sec. 196. Sec. 226. Common Gaming House defined. Unchanged. Where the keeper of a cigar store allowed gaming upon his premises and received the "rake-off," a portion of the stakes, in consideration of his supplying refreshments and cigars to the players, the jury may be instructed that such facts are evidence of keeping the place for gain" so as to constitute the same a common gaming house, although the amount so received was no more than a reasonable remuneration for the articles supplied. 66 The question in such case is not whether the accused made an actual substantial profit by the gaming, but whether the receipts of his business were increased by sales to persons who resorted to the store for the purpose of gaming. (18) The proprietor of a place in which the game known as "darts" or in which a cane and ring game is carried on, under conditions which make the chance of the proprietor much more favorable than that of the customers is properly convicted of keeping a gaming house. (19) It is a question of fact and not of law whether the use of a slot machine for selling cigars, whereby customers obtained, for the one price, a number of cigars varying according to the working of the machine, is or is not a game of chance, a mixed game of chance and skill, or a game of skill only. (20) (16) R. v. Osberg. 9 Can. Cr. Cas., 180; 15 Man. L. R., 147; R. v. Mannix, 10 Ont. L. R., 303; 10 Can. Cr. Cas., 150. (17) R. v. Sarah Smith, 9 Can. Cr. Cas., 338. (18) R. v. James, 6 Ont. L. R.. 35; 7 Can. Cr. Cas., 196. (19) R. v. Cashen, 11 Can. Cr. Cas., 183; R. v. Russell, 11 Can. Cr. Cas.. 180. (20) R. v. Fortier, 7 Can. Cr. Cas., 417; Que. Off. Rep., 15 K. B., 308. 2ND EDIT. REVISED STATUTES 1906 REMARKS A person who keeps in his shop an automatic slot machine, for use by customers, is, when its operation involves a game of chance in which the chances are not alike favorable to all,-guilty of using his shop for unlawful gaming under the English Gaming House Act, 1854. (21) If, in contravention of a regulation of Ontario License Commissioners, games are played in licensed premises, in the absence of the licensee, the latter may be convicted. (22) Proof that a game with cards, dice and "chips" was being played by several people seated at tables, each player procuring the "chips" from the accused, the proprietor of the place, and handing over to him the money therefor, and that the accused said that the game was "fan tan," and that he was "doing well out of it," is evidence that the game was a game of chance and that the place was being kept by the accused for gain under the sections of the Code relating to common gaming houses. (23) Proof that persons, other than those resident at or belonging to the house, room or place, at which the proprietor operates for gain a game of chance or a mixed game of chance and skill, were in attendance there and participated in such game is evidence that such persons" resorted" to such place for the purpose of playing such game, and of the place being a common gaming house. (24) The publication in a newspaper of an advertisement soliciting bets to be placed upon horse races and also giving the results from day to day of the races is illegal; and the newspaper proprietor is guilty, under section 197 (d) now section 227 (d), of the Code, of the indictable offence of using the newspaper office for the purpose of facilitating the making of bets upon horse races and of keeping a common betting house. (25.) The manager of a football coupon competition, (being a means of receiving money as the consideration for a promise to pay money on the event of football matches), published in a newspaper, - as an essential part of his scheme, an advertisement of prizes offered to and the rules to be observed and amounts to be paid by intending competitors, who were directed to fill in coupon sheets or forms appended to the advertisement, and to send them, with the amounts payable, to an address in Holland. He also published, in the same newspaper, lists of the prize winners in previous (21) Fielding v. Turner, [1993], 1 K. B.. 867; Thompson v. Mason 90 L. T., 649. (22) R. v. Laird, 7 Can. Cr. Cas., 318. (23) R. v. Mah Kee, 9 Can. Cr. Cas., 47. (24) Ib. (25) R. v. Smallpiece, 7 Can. Cr. Cas., 556. And see McKenzie v. Hawke [1902] 2 K. B., 216. 2ND EDIT. REVISED STATUTES 1906 REMARKS competitions. The office of the newspaper was opened and kept for the purpose of the competition. Held that there was evidence that the manager of the competition was a person using the office of the newspaper for the purpose of money being received by him as the consideration of the promise to pay money on the event of a game within the meaning of section 1 of the English Betting Act, 1853, and that the registered proprietor of the newspaper was a person knowingly and wilfully permitting the office to be used as aforesaid within the meaning of section 3 of the Act. (26) It has been held, in England, that any person publishing an advertisement, whereby it is made to appear that an office is used for the purpose of a coupon competition, being a scheme whereby money is received as the consideration for a promise to pay money on the event of a football match, is liable to the penalty mentioned in section of the English Betting Act 1853. (27) It was also held that any person publishing an advertisement whereby it is made to appear that any person will, on application, give information or advice with respect to a coupon competition, being a scheme whereby, through the medium of an office, money is received as a consideration for a promise to pay money on the event of a football match, is liable to the penalty mentioned in section 3 of the English Betting Act, 1874. (28) - The proprietor of a newspaper issued, with each copy of the paper, a coupon, so that the purchaser might fill in the names of the probable winners of certain football matches, a prize of twenty pounds sterling being given for the most accurate forecast. No money was paid except the price of the newspaper and any competitor, desiring to send in more than one estimate, could do so by obtaining additional copies of the paper. By far the greater number of copies were sold to the public through agents and not at the newspaper office. The appellant purchased copies of the newspaper at the newspaper office and filled in and returned the coupons to the office. Held that if the money was in fact received for the coupons and not merely for the newspaper, the proprietor had committed the offence under section 1 of the English Betting Act, 1853, of having opened, kept and used an office for the purpose of money being received in consideration of an undertaking to pay money on a contingency relating to a game. (29) (26) Mackenzie v. Hawke. 71 L. J., K. B., 561; [1902] 2 K. B., 216; 20 Cox C. C., 305. See Stoddart v. Hawke, 71 L. J., K. B., 133; [1902] 1 K. B., 353; 20 Cox C. C., 111. (27) Hawke v. Mackenzie (No. 1 and No. 2), 71 L. J., K. B., 565; [1902] 2 K. B., 225: 20 Cox C. C., 314. (28) Ib. R. v. Stoddart, 70 L. J., K. B., 189, followed. (29) Hawke v. Hulton, 22 T. L. R., 169; Mews Aun. Dig. [1906], 116. |