the said O O is asked by us the said justices if he can say any thing for himself why he should not be convicted of the premises above charged upon him in form aforesaid, and thereupon he saith that he is not guilty of the said offence Plea or de[or pleadeth and saith that, (as the defence may be)] where- fence. upon, we the said justices, at the same time and place, that is

to say, on the said 12th day of June in the year aforesaid, at A aforesaid, within the said county of do proceed to examine into the truth of the said complaint contained in the said information, in the presence and hearing, as well of the said II, as of the said Ő O, and thereupon on the same day and year last mentioned at ▲ aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, W W, a credible witness in this behalf, comes in his proper Evidence. person before us the said justices, to prove the said charge contained in the said information against the said 0 0, and is now here, by us the said justices sworn, and does before us the said justices take his corporal oath,upon the Holy Gospel of God to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, of and concerning the matters contained in the said informa tion (we the said justices having administered, and having sufficient power, and competent authority to administer such oath to him in that behalf); and the said W W, being so sworn, doth on his said oath say and depose, in the presence and hearing of the said O O, that the said O 0, on the said

day of in the said 43d year of the reign of our said sovereign lord the king that now is, at aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did [here set forth the evidence]: and the said O O does not produce any evidence to contradict the proof aforesaid; whereupon, and upon hearing and duly examining the whole matter, it manifestly appears to us the said justices, that the said O 0 is guilty of the offence charged upon him by the said information. It is therefore considered and ad. Judgment, judged by us the said justices, that the said O O be convicted, and he is accordingly convicted of the offence charged upon him, in and by the said information. And we do hereby adjudge, that the said O O, for the said offence, hath forfeited the sum of pounds of lawful money of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, current within the realm of Great Britain, + to be distributed according to the form of the

* Here may be inserted-By the oath of the said W W, a credible witness as aforesaid, according to the form of the statute aforesaid, by us the said justices convicted, &c. [or, by the oaths of A W, and B W, two credible witnesses, &c.] according to the directions and words of the statute.

+ Or if the penalty is to be divided between the king and the informer, and subject to mitigation, instead of the words, to be distributed according to the form of the statute, &c. you may conclude thus:

and

---to

One moiety thereof to our said lord the king, and the other moiety thereof to the said II, the said informer: But we do mitigate the same to the sum of — adjudge and order that the said OO do forthwith pay the said sum of our said lord the king and the said II, according to the form of the statute in that case made and provided. In witness, &c.

Non appear

ance.

Concerning the information.

statute in that case made and provided. [Or that the said ○ Ø for the said offence be committed, &c. pursuing the words of the statute if the punishment be by imprisonment]. In witness whereof we the said justices to this present record of conviction, have set our hands and seals at A aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, the said 12th day of June, in the 43d year of the reign of our said sovereign lord the king that now is.

If the defendaut, having been summoned, neglects to appear, say,

And afterwards, on the 6th day of June, in the said 43d year of the reign of our said lord the now king, at B aforesaid in the county aforesaid, he the said O O had notice of the said infor mation, and of the offence therein charged upon him as afore said, and was then and there, in pursuance of our summons in that behalf issued, duly summoned to appear before us the said justices at A aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, on this present 12th day of June, in the said 43d year of the reign of our said sovereign lord the king that now is, in order to make his defence against the said charge contained in the information aforesaid. And the said O O neglecting to appear here be fore us, in consequence of our said summons, and not making any defence to the suid charge contained in the said informe tion, we the said justices do now proceed to examine into the truth of the said complaint contained in the said information, aud ons WW a credible witness in this behalf, now here ap pearing before us, so being such justices as aforesaid, as a witness, to prove the said charge contained in the said infor. mation against the said O O, is now here by us the said justice, duly sworn, and does before us the said justices take his corporal oath, &c. as in the former precedent.

Or if the party confesses the charge, say,

And because the said O O hath nothing to say, nor can say any thing in his own defence touching and concerning the premises aforesaid, but doth of his own accord, freely and voluntarily wi knowledge and conjess, all and singulur the said premises to be true, in manner and form as the same are charged upon him in the said information ; and because all and singular the premises being heard and fully understood by us the said justices; it më nifestly appears to us

On the 5th day of June.] The information should contain the day when it was taken, that it may appear to have been given within the time limited by the statute. Boscaw. 17. 1 Ld. Raym,

582.

And if the time so limited by the statute be within one month or the like, without expressing that such mouth or mouths shall

be calendar ones, the limitation must be computed, according to lunar months, of 28 days each; and not according to the ca lendar months in our common almanacs. Therefore if the stre tute limits a prosecution to twelve months, in the plural number, such prosecution must be commenced within 48 weeks and not afterwards: but if it expresses a twelvemonth, in the singular number; this is to be intended a whole year, it being generally understood, that by the space of time, called thus in the singular number, a twelvemonth, is meant a whole calendar year.

And this mode of computation was assented to by Lord Kenyon Chief Justice, and The Court, in the case of Lacon and others v. Hooper and others, Ea. Ter. 35 Geo. 3, wherein his lordship said, that in all acts of parliament where months are spoken of, without the word calendar, and nothing is added from which a clear inference can be drawn that the legislature intended calendar months, it is understood to mean lunar months. & Term Rep. 226.

At A in the county of] It ought also to shew, the place where it was taken, that it may appear, the justice was act ing, within the limits of his jurisdiction. Boscawen 17.

And it seems proper, that the name of the county, should be in the body of the conviction, and not referred to, in the margin.

II, of in the said county of] The name of the informer must also be set forth; that it may afterwards appear, he is not the witness; no informer, where any part of a penalty is given to him, being competent to give evidence, unless the statute directs otherwise, as in the instance of convictions for covering buttons with cloth, and giving servants false cha.

racters.

Came before us.] The doctrine that is laid down, in the old cases, that a conviction must be in the present tense, seems to extend only to the judgment; for though it is reasonable (in point of form at least) that the magistrate should speak in the present tense of his own determination; yet the preceding acts of his jurisdiction, some of which must, and others may have passed at a different time, are more properly stated in the past tense. Boscao. 12.

And this is warranted by the case of the K. v. Hall, Tr. 26 G. 3. for where an objection was taken to a conviction, because the information was not in the present tense; it being stated, that the informer came before the justice, and gave him to understand, &c. the court over-ruled the objection, and said that the words objected to, were better in the past, than in the present tense; because they referred to a time past, namely, the time of making the information. 1 Term Rep. 320.

FJ, and S J, then and still being two of the justices of our said lord the king, in and for the said county, &c.] The name and style of the justices must be set forth, in their statement of You. I. 09

the information, that it may appear they have authority; and it is not sufficient to set that matter forth, in the adjudication; and it also seems to be the better opinion, that it ought to appear, that they are justices in and for the county, and not justices in the county only. Salked 474. 1 Strange 261.

And if a statute gives jurisdiction to any justice of a county, city, or town corporate, the court will presume that it means any justice of any place, district, or liberty, in any county where the offence shall be committed. K. v. Stephens, Ea, 23 Geo. 3. Caldecot's Cas. 302.

And gave us the said justices to understand and be informed. A conviction ought to be on an information or complaint prece dent. 1 Ld. Raymond 510.

And where the statute directs the information to be taken on oath, it should be so stated in the conviction. K. v. Willis, Hil. 19 Geo. 3. Boscaw. 16.

That one 00.] The name and addition of the offender should be set forth.

And a conviction against A B and company, without naming all the parties, cannot be sustained: not even against the party actually named: it being impossible on the face of such a conviction to determine, whether the delinquency imputed, wa not committed by the partners not named. Rex v. Harrison and Co. Ea. 40 Geo. 3. 8 Ter. Rep. 508.

On the day of ] The time of committing the of fence must also be stated, that it may appear, that the prosecu tion was commenced within the time limited by the statute. Sal keld 369.

But it seems that the particular day need not be mentioned in the information; it having been held sufficient to state the of fence, to have been committed between such a day, and such a day; for the days are not material to be proved, eviden being admissible of the facts on any other days; therefore, the omission of shewing them, will not vitiate the conviction; and is only necessary to lay them in point of time, so that the pro secution may appear, to be made within the time limited by the statute: and if the defendant be charged another time, he may aver that the offence of which he was before convicted is the same. Salkeld 378.1 Ld. Raym. 582. 10 Mod. 218.

And where a conviction upon a penal statate, limitiz the prosecution to three months, was dated on the 4th of June 1805, and stated that on the 29th of May 1805, the infor appeared before the justices, and informed them, that the de fendant within three months now last past, viz. on the 19thMay now last past, committed the offence, the court held th the words now last past after the 12th of May, referred to

* As in the case of 43 Eliz. c. 7. against breaking hedges,

day of the month, and not to the month, and that therefore the information was in time. The K. v. Crisp, Ea. Ter. 46 Geo. 3.7 East's Rep. 389.

And where a statute limits the time of conviction to three months or the like; if the hearing of the matter be adjourned over that time, though with the consent of the defendant, a conviction afterwards will be bad. Rex v. Jolley, Ea. Ter. 43 Geo. 3. 3 East's Rep. 467.

At in the county of · -] The information must specify the place where the offence was committed, that it may appear to be, within the jurisdiction of the justice. 2 Ld. Raymond

1220.

And if the place, in which the offence is charged to have been committed, lies intermediately within two points, it must be expressly alledged, to have been committed within the county, and within the jurisdiction of the convicting magistrate; for on a conviction on the stat. 5 Geo. 3. c. 14, for fishing without the consent of the owner, in part of a certain stream, which runneth between B. in the parish of A. in the county of W.and C. in the same parish and county: on an objection taken, that it did not appear, that the intermediate course of the stream between the wo places, in which the offence was alledged to be committed, was in the county of W. and within the jurisdiction of the conricting magistrate; the court quashed the conviction, oberving that they could not presume, that the place where the offence was committed, was within the jurisdiction of the conicting magistrate; but that it must expressly so appear: for it lid not follow, that the intermediate course of the stream, was in the same county, with the two points mentioned: the fact was ften otherwise. Rex v. Edwards, 1 East's Rep. 278.

Did, &c.] The information must always be stated at large, and contain an exact description of the offence, in order that it Bay appear, upon the face of the proceedings, that the fact harged against the defendant, is an offence within the descripion of the statute; but it is sufficient for the justices, in the desription of the offence, to pursue the words of the statute,and decribe it, as the statute wills; for they are not confined to the egal forms, requisite in indictments, for offences by the common aw. 1 Ld. Raymond 583.

But any less precise description, than what is contained in the tatute, is insufficient; thus, a conviction for having a gun in as house, contrary to 33 Ilen. 8. was quashed, because the words of the statute were not pursued, the statute being, use to Trep in his, or her house. 1 Shower 48. Boscawen 26.

So also in the case of The King v. Trelawney, E. 26 Geo. 3, conviction on 22 Geo. 3. c. 47, for insuring a ticket in the ottery, authorised by 25 Geo. 3, was quashed, because the information did not state, that the ticket, on which the insurance was made, was a ticket in the STATE lottery. The 22 Geo. 3.