Penalty for forcible entry or detainer.

103. Every one who forcibly enters or forcibly detains land is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment..

Origin]-- Code of 1892, sec. 89, sub-sec. (4).

Prize Fights.

Challenging. Accepting challenge, etc.

104. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars and not less than one hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour, or to both, who sends or publishes, or causes to be sent or published or otherwise made known, any challenge to fight a prize fight, or accepts any such challenge, or causes the same to be accepted, or goes into training preparatory to such fight, or acts as trainer or second to any person who intends to engage in a prize fight. Origin]-Sec. 93, Code of 1892; R.S.C. 1886, ch. 153, sec. 2. Prize fight defined]-See sec. 2 (31).

Special authority to certain tribunals]—Every judge of a superior court or of a county court, judge of the sessions of the peace, stipendiary magistrate, police magistrate, and commissioner of police of Canada, shall, within the limits of his jurisdiction as such judge, magistrate or commissioner, have all the powers of a justice with respect to offences against provisions of this Act as to prize fights. Code sec. 606.

Engaging as principals in a prize fight.

105. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months and not less than three months, with or without hard labour, who engages as a principal in a prize fight.

Origin]-Sec. 94, Code of 1892; R.S.C. 1886, ch. 153, sec. 3; 44 Vict. Can., ch. 30.

Special jurisdiction of certain tribunals]-See secs. 606, 627, 628,

1059.

Distinction between prize fight and boxing exhibition]-In all the cases a distinction has been made between a boxing or sparring exhibition" and a "fight." In Rex. v. Orton, 14 Cox Criminal Cases, 226,

upon a trial of an indictment against some persons for unlawfully assembling together for the purpose of a “prize fight," the law was stated as follows:

A mere exhibition of skill in sparring is not illegal. If, however, the parties meet intending to fight till one gives in from exhaustion or from injury received, it is a fight and a breach of the law, whether or not with gloves."

Judge Snider, in the Wildfong case (1911), 17 Can. Cr. Cas. 251, said: "In a boxing exhibition one of the contestants may be knocked down, but that is not the intention. In a fight it is the intention of each to so injure the other that he can no longer continue the encounter. The former has been held to be legal, the latter under the common law illegal. So in football a man may be knocked out, or have a leg or arm broken, but that is not the purpose or intention of those engaging in the game.

"Although an assault without intent, often doing grievous bodily harm, frequently occurs in football, it does not make the game unlawful. If, however, in football, as anywhere else, a person assaults another with intent to do him grievous bodily harm it is an illegal act and punishable. So far then as the word 'fight' in the definition of prize fight' in sub-sec. 31 of sec. 2 of the Code is concerned it must be held to have the meaning which the English decisions have given it, namely, an encounter between two persons, each intending to so injure the other that he cannot or will not continue the contest.

"Then does the word 'encounter' with hands or fists enlarge the meaning of prize fight.' Encounter' by the dictionary definitions and by common understanding applies to a great many acts and events of vastly different natures. In football men constantly tackle each other with hands, and this is an encounter' with hands, but not such as is intended by that word in the Code. Dozens of encounters' might be mentioned coming within the true definition of this word, but clearly not within the meaning of it as used in the Code. Encounter' in the definitions given also includes a fight'; it is a synonym for 'fight' and it is in that sense that it is used in the Code definition.

'At common law a prize fight' was unlawful, and was defined as 'an encounter with fists or hands with or without gloves for a number of rounds, limited or unlimited, for a purse, stake or prize, but in which it was intended to fight until one or the other of the combatants should give in from exhaustion or injury received.' Here in the law as it stood before in the statute or Code the words encounter with fists or hands' are used when defining a 'prize fight', as distinguished from a boxing match.'

As the words encounter with fists or hands' had always been used at common law and by the Courts in speaking of prize fights as synonymous with the word 'fight' and not including a boxing match, they must be so construed in the Code." R. v. Wildfong, supra.

64

In R. v. Littlejohn (N.B.), 8 Can. Cr. Cas. 212, it was said:There is also authority that a sporting match with gloves, according to well-known rules, is no offence in law, that is, if it be a mere exhibition of skill in sparring; but if parties meet intending to fight till one gives in from exhaustion or injury received it is a breach of the law and a prize fight, whether the combatants use gloves or not."

A boxing match which would otherwise not be a prize fight is not made a prize fight by the circumstance that the participants were each paid a fixed sum for the match. R. v. Fitzgerald, 19 Can. Cr. Cas. 145.

The consent of the contestant in entering into an illegal prize fight does not prevent the blows received from being considered as a criminal assault. R. v. Coney, 8 Q.B.D. 534, 51 L.J.M.C. 66, 15 Cox C.C. 46. An encounter with gloves may become illegal when one of the parties fights on when so much exhausted as to be likely to fall over to own injury, it being against the public good that a combatant should so endanger himself even where the contest is held in private and without malice and would, therefore, not provoke a breach of the peace by others. R. v. Young, 10 Cox C.C. 371; R. v. Coney, supra. Cf. R. v. Moore (1898), 14 Times, L.R. 229; R. v. Canniff, 9 C. & P. 359.

"Prize fight"]-Sec 2, sub-sec. (31), declares that prize fight' means an encounter or fight with fists or hands between two persons who have met for such purpose by previous arrangement made by or for them. It may be doubted whether this eliminates the question of a prize.

Sec. 108 deals with the case of a fight arranged between the parties to a quarrel without any "prize" dependent upon the result and without the handing over or transfer of money or property being involved. In that case the magistrate may in his discretion discharge the accused or impose a penalty not exceeding $50. The marginal note to that sec. is: "When fight is not a prize fight"; but whether sec. 108 is a provision for a distinct and separate offence from that to which sec. 105 applies, or merely a provision for certain extenuating circumstances, is a question which can hardly be said to be settled by the authorities. If a prize or other valuable consideration is an essential to a "prize fight," sec. 108 would be for a distinct offence not constituting a prize fight but an arranged fight following a quarrel or dispute, which might be the subject of an assault charge; R. v. Perkins, 4 C. & P. 437; but would not be within the power of a justice to try under the summary convictions procedure, but for the express provision of sec. 108. charging the jury in a manslaughter case arising out of an alleged prize fight, Harvey, C.J., said that the presence or absence of a prize" which is suggested by the word "prize fight" has no significance. R. v. Pelkey (1913), 4 W.W.R. 1055, at 1057, 21 Can. Cr. Cas. 387, 24 W.L.R. 804. A dictum to the same effect is contained in R. v. Wildfong, 17 Can. Cr. Cas. 251 (Ont.). In the latter case, as well as in R. v. Littlejohn, 8 Can. Cr. Cas. 212, and R. v. Fitzgerald, 19 Can. Cr. Cas. 145,

In

convictions by the magistrate were set aside on appeal to the court presided over by the county judge. In Steele v. Maber, 19 Que. S.C. 392, 6 Can. Cr. Cas. 446, a district magistrate made a conviction for prizefighting where an admission fee was charged and it was announced that the contestant who knocked out his opponent in a certain number of rounds should receive the prize, and it was held that it was no defence that there was in fact not a bona fide fight but a feigned exhibition of fighting. Steele v. Maber, supra (in which the gain to the contestants is emphasized).

Suppressing a prospective prize fight]-See secs. 627, 628, 1059.

Attending or promoting a prize fight.

106. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, with or without hard labour, or to both, who is present at a prize fight as an aid, second, surgeon, umpire, backer, assistant or reporter, or who advises, encourages or promotes such fight.

Origin]-Sec. 95, Code of 1892; R.S.C. 1886, ch. 153, sec. 5; 44 Vict. Can., ch. 30.

Aiders and abetters]-See secs. 69, 70. It is a question of fact whether an onlooker was or was not aiding or abetting the fight, but it is necessary to determine first that the fight itself was illegal where the charge is for encouraging or abetting a prize fight. R. v. Coney, 8 Q.B.D. 534, 51 L.J.M.C. 66, 15 Cox C.C. 46, cited in R. v. Pelkey (1913), 4 W.W.R. 1055, 24 W.L.R. 804, 21 Can. Cr. Cas. 387.

Special jurisdiction of judges and others]-See secs. 606, 627, 628, 1059.

Leaving Canada to engage in prize fight.

107. Every inhabitant or resident of Canada is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding four hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour, or to both, who leaves Canada with intent to engage in a prize fight without the limits thereof.

Origin]-Sec. 96, Code of 1892; R.S.C. 1886, ch. 153, sec. 5, 44 Vict. Can., ch. 30.

Special jurisdiction of judges and others]-See secs. 606, 627, 628. 1059.

When fight is not a prize fight.—Discharge or fine.

108. If, after hearing evidence of the circumstances connected with the origin of the fight or intended fight, the person before whom the complaint is made is satisfied that such fight or intended fight was bona fide the consequence or result of a quarrel or dispute between the principals engaged or intended to engage therein, and that the same was not an encounter or fight for a prize, or on the result of which the handing over or transfer of money or property depended, such person may, in his discretion, discharge the accused or impose upon him a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars.

Origin]-Sec. 97, Code of 1892; R.S.C. 1886, ch. 153, sec. 9; 44 Vict. Can., ch. 30.

Arranged fight to settle quarrel]-See note to sec. 105 (prize fights). The person before whom the complaint is made]-See secs. 706, 707 (summary convictions) and secs. 606, 627, 628, 1059 (special jurisdiction of judges and others).

Inciting Indians.

Riotous request.-Breach of the peace.

109. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who induces, incites or stirs up any three or more Indians, non-treaty Indians, or half-breeds, apparently acting in concert,

(a) to make any request or demand of any agent or servant of the Government in a riotous, routous, disorderly

or threatening manner, or in a manner calculated to cause a breach of the peace; or,

(b) to do any act calculated to cause a breach of the peace. Origin]-Sec. 98, Code of 1892; R.S.C. 1886, ch. 43, sec. 111. “Indians ”]—For definition see the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1906, ch. 81, sec. 2.

That Act also deals with other offences specially relating to Indians; and see amendments, 1910, Can., ch. 28; 1911, Can., ch. 14, 1913, Can., ch. 35.

S. 94 of the Indian Act (R.S.C. 1886, c. 43) provided that, "Every person who sells, exchanges with, barters, supplies or gives to any Indian or non-treaty Indian, any intoxicant shall on sum

.

mary conviction ... be liable to imprisonment for a term not