malicious) committed in hunting, fishing or pursuit of game. (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 52.)

-What provision is made by a recent act as to the safety of post office letter boxes?

A.-By the Post Office Protection Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 76), it is enacted that a person shall not place or attempt to place in or against any post office letter box any dangerous, noxious or deleterious substance or fluid, and shall not attempt to do anything likely to injure the box, appurtenances or contents; any person contravening that section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 107.; and on conviction on indictment to imprisonment with or without hard labour to the extent of twelve months. (Sect. 3.)

-What provision is made against sending by post things likely to cause damage?

A.-By the act last mentioned it is provided that any person sending in a postal packet any explosive, dangerous or deleterious substance, or any living creature or thing whatsoever likely to injure either other postal packages or an officer of the post office, or enclosing in a postal packet any indecent or obscene print or article, or marking anything of the like character on the cover thereof, is guilty of the like offence and liable to punishment as above. (Sect. 4.)

Q. What other acts are declared offences by the

same act?

A.-(1) To affix any placard, advertisement, notice, &c. on any property belonging to or used by or on behalf of the Postmaster-General. (Sect. 5.)

(2) To send without due authority any paper having thereon any words or marks which may imply that the same is sent on her Majesty's service. (Sect. 6.)

(3) To place on any house, wall, &c., without due authority the words "post office," "letter box," or any words or marks which may lead the public to believe that the place is a post office or letter box. (Sect. 8.)

(4) To obstruct an officer of the Post Office when on duty. (Sect. 9.)

The above offences are punishable on summary conviction by fine to the extent of 40s.

(5) To make or sell any fictitious stamp; to have the same or a die or stamp for making the same in his possession.

This offence is punishable by fine to the extent of 207. on summary conviction on a prosecution by order of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. (Sect. 7.)

(6) For any person to forge or disclose improperly a telegram, the penalty is fine on summary conviction to the extent of 107., and on conviction on indictment to imprisonment with or without hard labour to the extent of twelve months; but if the person be in the employ of a telegraph company the fine on summary conviction may extend to 201., or on conviction on indictment to 2007., or in the latter case imprisonment may be awarded with or without hard labour to the extent of one year. (Sect. 11.)

All offences under the act punishable on summary conviction may be prosecuted and fines recovered in England in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. (Sect. 12.)

Forgery.

Q.-What is forgery?

A.—It is the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing or seal to the prejudice of another man's right, or of a stamp to the prejudice of the revenue. (4 Steph. Comm. p. 149.)

Q.-Is it necessary, as regards writings, that the instrument forged must so far resemble the true instrument as to be capable of deceiving persons who use ordinary observation?

A. Yes; and it is also decided that any material alteration, however slight, is a forgery as well as an entire fabrication. (R. v. Collicott, L. C. 229.)

Q.-If a name forged be a fictitious one, is the party forging liable?

A. Yes, it is a forgery if done with intention to defraud, and he is liable accordingly. (R. v. Bontein, R. & R. C. C. R. 260.)

Q.-What offence is it to forge the great seal of the United Kingdom, the privy seal or any privy signet, the sign manual, the seals of Scotland, or the great seal and privy seal of Ireland, and what is the punishment?

A.-It is a felony, punishable with penal servitude for life or not less than five years, or imprisonment not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. (24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 1.)

Q. What offence is it and what punishment for fraudulently forging or counterfeiting any trade mark lawfully used by any other person to denote that any

chattel or thing therewith marked is of his own manufacture or merchandise or in respect of which he has any copyright?

A.—It is a misdemeanor, punishable with imprisonment to the extent of two years, with or without hard labour, or fine and imprisonment. (25 & 26 Vict. c. 88.)

Q. What alteration was made by 33 & 34 Vict. c. 58, in reference to the forgery of stock certificates, &c., issued by the Bank of England in payment of interest of the National Debt?

A. It was enacted that any person who forged stock certificates or coupons issued by the Bank of England in payment of interest of the National Debt, or the personation of the owners of such stock, should be guilty of a felony and punishable with penal servitude for life or not less than five years, or imprisonment to the extent of two years, with or without hard labour and solitary confinement.

Q. How may it be proved that a signature to a document is forged?

A. The most natural evidence would be the denial of the person whose writing it purports to be, and the handwriting may also be proved not to be his by any person acquainted with his handwriting, either from having seen him write or from being in the habit of corresponding with him. And, further, it is provided by the 28 Vict. c. 18, that comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine may be made by witnesses, and that such writings and the evidence of witnesses concerning the same may be submitted to the court

and jury as evidence of their genuineness or otherwise of the writing in dispute. (See Har. Crim. Law, p. 267.)

Q. How is the intent to defraud to be proved?

A.—It is not necessary to show an intention to defraud any particular person, a general fraudulent intention being sufficient, but it must be proved that at the time of uttering the accused knew the document to be forged. This, not being capable of direct proof, must be inferred from surrounding facts. Thus, if the accused had uttered other forged instruments and had such in his possession, it would furnish a strong presumption of guilt, and it has been decided that notice may be taken of a subsequent uttering, even though it be the subject of a distinct indictment. (R. v. Aston, 2 Russ. p. 732.)

Q. Can any person refuse, in civil proceedings under the Declaration of Title Act, 1862, to give evidence on the ground that he would criminate himself?

A.-No; but such evidence cannot be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings.

Q. Can an indictment for forgery be tried at the sessions?

A.-No, but only at the Central Criminal Court or the assizes. (5 & 6 Vict. c. 38.)

Q.-The crime of forgery is committed in one place and the offender is arrested in another. Where may he be tried?

A. He may be dealt with, indicted, tried and punished in any county or place in which he shall be apprehended or be in custody, in the same manner in