(20) The 4 W. & M. c. 8, § 2; 6 & 7 W. III. c. 17, § 9; 5 Ann. c. 31, § 1; 14 G. II. c. 6, § 2; and 15 G. II. c. 28, § 7, so far as they related to the rewards enumerated in the text, were repealed by 58 G. III. c. 70, which authorized the court, before which any felon should be tried, to order the county treasurer to pay to the prosecutor or witnesses who should appear to have been active in the apprehension of any person, and who should give evidence against any person ac-` cused of grand or petit larceny, &c., the costs of prosecuting and appearing before the grand jury; and also to compensate them for their loss of time and trouble in such apprehension. Where a person had travelled 300 miles, and incurred an expense of 171., in tracing and endeavouring to bring two horsestealers to justice, and had succeeded in apprehending them: held, by Park, J., that under this statute he was not entitled to any compensation for the money so expended; Rer v. Austen, D. & R. N. P. C. 24. But now by statute 7 G. IV. c. 64, § 22, courts may order payment of the expenses of all prosecutions for felony, and allow persons attending on recognizances, where no bill is preferred, a reasonable sum to reimburse their expenses. By § 23, courts may order payment of the expenses of any prosecution for misdemeanor, in cases of assault with intent to commit felony, of any attempt to commit felony, of any riot, of any misdemeanor for receiving any stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, of any assault upon a peaceofficer in the execution of his duty, or upon any person acting in aid of such

officer, of any neglect or breach of duty as a peace-officer, of any assault committed in pursuance of any conspiracy to raise the rate of wages, of knowingly and designedly obtaining any property by false pretences, of wilful and indecent exposure of the person, of wilful and corrupt perjury, or of subornation of perjury. By § 24, the order for payment is directed to be made out by the proper officer of the court, and paid by the county treasurer. Sect. 25 points out the mode for payment of these expenses in places not contributing to the county rate, such as liberties, franchises, cities, and towns, all of which are respectively rendered chargeable. Sect. 26 empowers the justices at quarter sessions to regulate such costs and expenses. By § 28, courts may order compensation to parties who have been active in the apprehension of certain offenders as therein described. Sect. 29 authorizes the sheriff to pay such order, who is to be reimbursed by the treasury. By § 30, if any man is killed in attempting to apprehend any of the offenders mentioned in § 28, the court may order compensation to his family. The above Act repeals the 4 W. & M. c. 8; 10 & 11 W. III. c. 23, § 1, 2; 5 Ann. c. 31, § 1; 14 G. II. c. 6; 18 G. III. c. 19, § 7 & 8; and 58 G. III. c. 70. See further as to costs and restitution of goods, post, 362. Where the prosecutor of an indictment for a misdemeanor found at sessions, removes it into K.B. by certiorari, he is not entitled to costs under 7 G. IV. c. 64, § 23; Rex v. Richards, 8 B. & C. 420; 2 M. & R. 405.

The court of King's Bench will not

issue a mandamus to the treasurer of a town or county, commanding him to obey an order made by a judge of assize for the payment of the costs of the prosecutor and witnesses in an indictment for a misdemeanor, under 7 G. IV. c. 64, § 23; Rex v. Jeyes, 5 Nev. & Man. 101.

A party was bound over to prosecute at the sessions, in a case within 7 G. IV. c. 64, § 23, but prosecuted at the as

sizes.

Witnesses were called upon

subpoenas from the clerk of assize. Held, that the witnesses were entitled to an order for their costs under that statute; but, doubted, whether the prosecutor was so entitled; Id. ibid.

In the case of an indictment removed into K. B. by certiorari, the court has no power to order the payment of costs incurred before the removal; Rex v. Pasman, 3 Nev. & Man. 730.

reasonable bail

missible.

being gone into, C. committed A. for re-examination on a charge of suspicion of having unlawfully disposed of the goods of B. It was held that the charge was not so made as to give the magistrate jurisdiction over the matter, under $ 8 of the Pawnbroker's Act, 39 & 40 G. III. c. 99; Tate v. Chambers, 3 Nev. & Man. 523.

And it was doubted whether, in a case upon that statute, properly brought before a magistrate, the party can be committed for re-examination; Id. ibid.

(3) The 2 & 3 P. & M. c. 10, is repealed by the 7 G. IV. c. 64; by § 2 of which it is enacted, "that two justices before they shall admit to bail, and one or two justices before he or they shall commit any person arrested for, or on suspicion of felony, shall take the examination of such person, and the information upon oath of those who know the facts and circumstances of the case, and shall put the same, or so much thereof as shall be material, into writing, and the two justices shall certify such bailment in writing; and every such justice shall have authority to bind by recognizance all such persons as know or declare any thing material, touching any such felony or suspicion of felony, to appear at the court at which the trial thereof is intended to be, there to prosecute or give evidence against the party accused: and such justices shall subscribe all such examinations, informations, bailments, and recognizances, and deliver, or cause the same to be delivered to the proper officer of the court, before or at the opening of the court." As to the cases in which depositions taken under the statute are evidence, see 2 Chit. Burn, VOL. IV.

Examination. Where the prosecutrix in a case of felony is bed-ridden, and there is no probability that she will ever be able to leave her house, the judge will admit her deposition before the ma gistrate, the same as if she were dead; Rex v. Hogg, 6 C. & P. 176. A. who was a witness for the prosecution against B., on a charge of arson, had first been examined by the magistrate before any specific charge had been made against any person, and his deposition taken in writing. A. was next accused of the offence, and his statement as a prisoner was also taken down by the magistrate. After this, B. was charged with the offence, and A. examined as a witness, when A.'s statement made at that time was taken down, B. being then committed. Held, that all these statements of A., so taken down, should have been returned to the judge, and not merely the statement made when B. was committed; Rex v. Simons, id. 540. Depositions should not be full of technical terms, but all depositions should be taken in the presence of the party accused, and taken down in the exact natural language, and peculiar expressions used by the prosecutor or witnesses. This would prevent the deponents' being unable to recollect what they had said. Many depositions, on the contrary, are filled up either with Latin words or law technicalities, which, when read over to the witnesses, it was impossible they could understand. The defendant, in all such cases, should be permitted to crossexamine the witnesses, and the depositions should be taken down in all particulars completely and accurately, as the evidence was actually given." GG