for him, and agreed to pay B. his ordinary wages, and $1 per diem for C. A., making default, was convicted before a Magistrate under the Act, and ordered to pay B. $15.50 for C.'s services. A. appealed, but the appeal was adjourned to another sessions, when the conviction was quashed. B. then obtained a summons to shew cause why a certiorari should not issue, to return the order quashing the conviction into the Queen's Bench :Held, that the applicant had a right to a certiorari; but it would seem that the proceedings to reinstate the conviction were unnecessary under the circumstances, for, admitting that the Superior Court should quash the order on any ground, the conviction must still rest on its own merits, and it did not clearly appear that the case was within the Act :-Held, also, that the agreement referred to did not come within the second branch of the Con. Stats. s. 3. It would seem, also, that the terms used in the first branch of this section refer to agreements where master, journeymen and labourers belong to the same calling, and one engages the other to work for him in its exercise. (a) A conviction of a servant for absenting himself from his master's employmont does not determine the contract of service. (b) A workman entered into a contract with a master to serve him for the term of two years; he absented himself, during the continuance of the contract, from his master's service, and, under 4 Geo. 4., c. 34, s. 3, he was summoned before Justices, convicted and committed to prison. After the imprisonment had expired, and while the term still continued, he refused to return to his master's service, and was again summoned before Justices, (a) Re Doyle, 4 U. C. P. R. 32; as to a hiring within the second branch of this section, see Reg. v. Walker, 21 U. C. Q. B. 34. (b) Unwin and Clark, L. R. 1 Q. B. 417. when he stated he considered his contract determined by the commitment. The Justices found that he, bona fide, believed that he could not be compelled to return to his employment, and dismissed the summons. The question for the opinion of the Court was whether the Justices had power to commit the respondent to prison a second time:-Held, that, although the servant had not returned to the service, yet, as the contract continued, he had been guilty of a fresh offence, for which, notwithstanding his conviction and imprisonment, he could be convicted a second time, and that his bona fide belief that he was not legally liable to return to the service, being a mistake in law, did not constitute a valid excuse for his absence. (a) A conviction under the Con. Stats., c. 75, must shew that the person, against whom the complaint is lodged, was a servant at the time of the conviction or order; that the complaint was upon oath, and in what manner the wages are due. (b) The Con. Stats. U. C., c. 49, s. 43, et seq. provides for the establishment and regulation of tolls, on roads constructed by joint stock companies. The offence created and contemplated by the Statute is the exacting and taking a sum over and above the amount of toll which the collector is authorized to take. Section 89 of this Statute, which makes it an offence to "take a greater toll than is authorized by law," does not apply to the case of taking toll from a person who is altogether exempt. If it did, a conviction for such offence should state the ground of exemption, and the fact of exemption being claimed, so that the Court could see that an offence was committed. Where a person passed through the gate on the 10th of (a) Unwin and Clark, L. R. 1 Q. B. 417. (b) Helps and Eno, 9 U. C. L. J. 302. January, the collector giving him credit, as was usual between them, and on the 20th they had a settlement, and the toll for the 10th was then demanded and paid, semble, that a conviction for such demand, if illegal, could not be supported. (a) Section 91, ss. 7, exempts any person, with horse or carriage, going to, or returning from, his usual place of religious worship, on the Lord's Day. If a minister attends church, according to the usage prescribed and observed by the rules of the particular persuasion to which he belongs, such church may be considered, as to him, the usual place of religious worship when he is attending it, on the day so prescribed. (b) A waggon of the seller carrying artficial manure to the farm of the purchaser, is within the exemption from toll, in the 5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 18, s. 1, as "a carriage employed in conveying manure for land. (c) The following conviction before the Magistrates, "for that the defendant did, at, etc., on or about the first day of December, and upon other days and times, before and since, take and receive toll from the informant, at the toll-gate No. 3, situate on the macadamized road between Hamilton and Brantford, in the said district, unlawfully and improperly, the said gate not being in a situation or locality authorized by law," being removed into this Court by certiorari, was held bad in not shewing that the defendant was summoned, or was heard, and in not setting out the evidence, or stating that any complaint was made, or evidence given by any one on oath; in not stating how much toll was taken, and in not shewing in what respect the taking of toll was unlawful. (d) (a) Reg. v. Campion, 28 U. C. Q. B. 259. (b) Smith v. Barnett, L. R. 6 Q. B. 36, per Blackburn, J. (c) Foster and Tucker, L. R. 5 Q. B. 224; see (Ont.) 32 Vic., c. 40; Con. Stats. Can., c. 86, s. 3. (d) Reg. v. Brown, 4 U. C. Q. B. 147. Where tolls, fixed by the Commissioners, are exacted by a toll-gate keeper, at a gate not six miles apart from the one previously passed, the toll-gate keeper, under the 3 Vic., c. 53, s. 34, is not liable to a summary conviction, for the Statute was intended to prevent the taking of more or less toll than the Commissioners have appointed. (a) The following conviction "Home District, to wit: Be it remembered, that on the 16th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1849, at the City of Toronto, in the District aforesaid, Thomas Haystead is convicted before me, S. G. Lynn, one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the said District, for that he the said Thomas Haystead did, on the 14th day of January, instant, evade payment of toll, at the toll-gate situate on the Vaughan Branch of the Albion Planked Road; and I, the said Justice, adjudge the said Thomas Haystead, for his said offence, to forfeit and pay 10 shillings, and also to pay the sum of thirteen shillings and seven pence for costs, and, in default of immediate payment of the said sums, to be imprisoned in the gaol of this city for the space of one month, unless the said sums shall be sooner paid; and I direct that the said sum of ten shillings shall be paid to the Albion Road Company, and I order that the said sum of thirteen shillings and seven-pence shall be paid to me, the convicting Justice. Given under my hand and seal, etc.," was held bad, in omitting, first, any statement of the information; second, the summons and appearance or default of the accused; third, his plea, denying or confessing; fourth, the evidence, and also in not shewing that any toll was claimed, or what toll, or how imposed, or that any could be claimed or imposed by reason of the completion of the road, or any part of it; also, because it (a) Reg. v. Brown, 4 U. C. Q. B. 147. BB did not appear therein that the defendant had proceeded on the road with any carriage or animal liable to pay toll, and, after turning out of the road, had returned to or re-entered it, with such carriage or animal beyond the toll-gate, without paying toll, whereby payment was evaded. (a) A conviction, under s. 95 of this Act, stating that defendant wilfully passed a gate without paying, and refusing to pay, toll, was held good, and sufficiently shewing a demand of toll, Quære, whether it would be sufficient to allege that he wilfully passed without paying, and without, in any way, shewing a demand. (b) It was also held, in this case, that the non-exemption of the defendant, if essential to be alleged, was sufficiently stated in these words: "he, the said James Caister, not being exempted by law from paying toll on the said road," and the Con. Stats. Can., c. 103, s. 44, throws the proof on the defendant. Where the general form prescribed by the Con. Stats. Can., c. 103, s. 50, sched. 1, is used it is clearly not requisite to shew that the defendant was summoned or heard, or any evidence given. It is not necessary to name any time for payment of the fine, and, in such case, it is payable forthwith. (c) In this case it was objected, (1) that M., the keeper and lessee of the gate, had no authority to exact toll; (2) that the Corporation had been dissolved; (3) that no Board of Directors had been appointed since 1866; (4) that, if legally appointed, they could not lease the gate; (5) that the lease to M. had expired; (6) that he could not take advantage of the penal clauses in the Act; (7) that it was not shewn that any toll had been fixed, but:-Held, that (a) Reg. v. Haystead, 7 U. C. Q. B. 9. |