Venucl-Where a conspiracy is shown to have been carried on in two counties there is jurisdiction to commit for trial and to hold the trial itself in either of the counties or in another county within the same province if the accused persons are apprehended in such other county. Where persons are brought by process from one county to another upon a conspiracy charge and committed for trial therein but the Crown fails to prove against them any overt act committed within the county in which the proceedings are taken, although charged as committed in both counties, the court of that county has no jurisdiction to convict for a conspiracy committed wholly within the county from which the accused were brought. The defendants brought by process into the county of trial are to be considered as in custody solely in respect of the charge laid, and jurisdiction is not conferred on the courts of the county to which they are taken to try them because of their presence in custody on any other charge preferred by the Crown as to which such court would otherwise have no jurisdiction. R. v. O'Gorman, 15 Can. Cr. Cas. 173, 18 O.L.R. 427; Fournier v. AttorneyGeneral, 19 Que. K.B. 436, 17 Can. Cr. Cas. 113.

Speedy trial jurisdiction]—An election of speedy trial without a jury in the County Court Judge's Criminal Court does not confer jurisdiction in a case in which there would be no jurisdiction over the accused if the trial were upon indictment before a jury. Semble, had the charge in the preliminary enquiry not included both counties as the locality of the conspiracy and had no evidence been proven before the committing magistrate of overt acts in his county by some of the persons charged, the committal for trial and the indictment or charge which followed, might have been quashed: but if the evidence of an overt act within the county upon which the committal order was founded is discredited at the subsequent trial, the fact of the committal having been made does not aid the jurisdiction as regards a person brought from another county or district to answer the charge. The King v. O'Gorman, 15 Can. Cr. Cas. 173, 18 O.L.R. 427; Fournier v. Attorney-General, 19 Que. K.B. 436, 17 Can. Cr. Cas. 113.

An allegation of the place of the offence is a material one and necessary to be proved to confer jurisdiction upon a county tribunal where the accused were not found or apprehended in the same county in which the trial is to take place. R. v. O'Gorman, 15 Can. Cr. Cas. 173, 18 O.L.R. 427.

Conspiracy to defraud]-See sec. 444.

Conspiracy to affect market prices]-See sec. 444.

Trade combinations or conspiracies]—See Code secs. 496-504, 581, 590, 1012; the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 6-7 Edw. VII, Can., ch. 20, 8-9 Edw. VII, Can., ch. 22, 9-10 Edw. VII, Can., ch. 29; the Trade Unions Act, R.S.C. 1906, ch. 125.

Evidence generally in conspiracy cases]-See note to sec. 444.

Accessories after the fact in certain cases.

574. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to seven years' imprisonment who, in any case where no express provision is made by this Act for the punishment of an accessory, is accessory after the fact to any indictable offence for which the punishment is, on a first conviction, imprisonment for life, or for fourteen years, or for any term longer than fourteen years.

Origin] Sec. 531, Code of 1892.

Accessories after the fact]—Code secs. 71 (defined); 76 (to treason), 267 (to murder), 849 (indictment of accessories after the fact).

Acts intended to destroy or conceal things which may be produced in evidence against a prisoner on his trial, make the doer an accessory after the fact, of whom the correct technical description in an indictment is expressed by the words "receive, harbour and maintain." R. v. Levy, 7 Cr. App. R. 61, and see R. v. Butterfield (1843) 1 Cox C.C.

39.

Accessories before the fact]-See sec. 69 as to aiding and abetting or counselling and procuring an offence. Persons who do so are declared guilty parties to the offence itself and may be so charged.

Accessories after the fact in other cases.

575. Every one who is accessory after the fact to any indictable offence for committing which the longest term to which the offender can be sentenced is less than fourteen years, if no express provision is made for the punishment of such accessory, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term equal to one-half of the longest term to which a person committing the indictable offence to which he is accessory may be sentenced.

Origin]-Sec. 532, Code of 1892.

Accessories after the fact generally]--Code sec. 71.

PART XI.

JURISDICTION.

Rules of Court.

Court's power to make rules. Regulating sittings.-Regulating practice. Generally for regulating.-Rules to be laid before Parliament.—Authority in Ontario for making.

576. Every superior court of criminal jurisdiction may at any time, with the concurrence of a majority of the judges thereof present at any meeting held for the purpose, make rules of court, not inconsistent with any statute of Canada, which shall apply to all proceedings relating to any prosecution, proceeding or action instituted in relation to any matter of a criminal nature, or resulting from or incidental to any such matter, and in particular,

(a) for regulating the sittings of the court or of any division thereof, or of any judge of the court sit

ting in chambers, except in so far as the same are already regulated by law;

(b) for regulating in criminal matters the pleading, practice and procedure in the court, including the subjects of mandamus, certiorari, habeas corpus, prohibition, quo warranto, bail and costs, and the proceedings on application to a justice to state and sign a case for the opinion of the courts as to a conviction, order, determination or other proceeding before him; and,

(c) generally for regulating the duties of the officers of the

court and every other matter deemed expedient for

better attaining the ends of justice and carrying the provisions of the law into effect.

721

2. Copies of all rules made under the authority of this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament at the session next after the making thereof, and shall also be published in the Canada Gazette.

3. In the Province of Ontario the authority for the making of rules of court applicable to superior courts of criminal juris diction in the province is vested in the supreme court of judica ture, and such rules may be made by the said court at any time with the concurrence of a majority of the judges thereof present at a meeting held for the purpose.

Origin]-Sec. 533, Code of 1892.

Criminal Practice Court Rules generally]—In addition to the general authority conferred by sec. 576, there is a further authorization by sec. 1126 by which the court having authority to quash a conviction or order made by a justice may prescribe by general order for the giving of security by the applicant.

In a Quebec case it was held that security for costs cannot be ordered against the petitioner for a writ of certiorari in a criminal case in the absence of a general rule of court passed under Code sec. 1126. Tierney v. Choquet (1908) 13 Can. Cr. Cas. 238.

There is also in Part XV, relating to summary convictions, a special reference to the regulation by rule or order made under sec. 576 of the practice on stated cases by justices for review by a superior court (sec. 705, sub-sec. (b)).

Code sec. 914, sub-sec. 2, provides that the statement of the arraignment and the proceedings subsequent thereto shall be entered of record in the same manner as heretofore, subject to any such alterations in the forms of such entry as are, from time to time, prescribed by any rule or rules of the superior courts of criminal jurisdiction respectively.

Any Crown rules altering the mode of entering records of arraignment and proceedings at trial as provided for in sec. 914 will also apply to such inferior courts of criminal jurisdiction as are designated in the Rules. Sec. 914 (3).

Interpretation of Rules of Court]-Court Rules made by virtue of the power conferred by the Code are to be construed as though em bodied in the Code itself. R. v. Dean, [1917] 2 W.W.R. 943 (Alta.).

Superior court of criminal jurisdiction "]—The courts included in this phrase are mentioned in the defining clause, Code sec. 2 (35).

“All proceedings relating to any prosecution,” etc.]—“ In a criminal proceeding the question is not alone whether substantial justice has been done, but whether justice has been done according to law. All proceedings in pœnam are strictissimi juris; nor should it be forgotten that the formalities of law, though here and there they may lead to