to commit such an offence, provided the conspiracy be not limited to doing the act abroad. R. v. Kohn, 4 F. & F. 68, Willes, J.

A foreigner who kills another foreigner or an Englishman on the high seas on board a foreign ship, is in nowise amenable to the law of England, or triable in England except in a case of piracy. R. v. Lewis, Dears. & B. 182; 16 L. J. (M. C.) 104: R. v. De Mattos, 7 C. & P. 458: R. v. Depardo, 1 Taunt. 26: R. & R. 134; 9 R. R. 693. This rule applies where the ship has been illegally seized as a slaver by a British vessel. R. v. Serva, 1 Den. 104; 2 C. & K. 53; 1 Cox, 298. The foreigner is liable to extradition where the ship belongs to a state as to which the Extradition Acts have been applied. 33 & 34 Vict. c. 52, s. 16. A foreigner was indicted at the Central Criminal Court for manslaughter under the following circumstances. He was in command of a foreign ship, passing within three miles of the shore of England on a voyage to a foreign port; and whilst within that distance his ship ran into a British ship and sank her, whereby a passenger on board the latter ship was drowned. The facts of the case were such as, apart from the question of jurisdiction, to amount to manslaughter by English law. It was held by the majority of a court of 13 judges that the offence was not committed on board the British ship, and that there was no jurisdiction in the courts of this country to try the prisoner, a foreigner passing the English coast on the high seas in a foreign ship, though the occurrence took place within three miles of the English coast. R. v. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63; L. J. (M. C.) 17; 13 Cox, 43. Parliament approved the view of the minority, and at once passed the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 73). Sect. 2 of that Act declares (see R. v. Dudley, 14 Q. B. D. 273, 560; 54 L. J. (M. C.) 32) and enacts that "an offence committed by a person, whether he is or is not a subject of his Majesty, on the open sea, within the territorial waters of his Majesty's dominions, is an offence within the jurisdiction of the Admiral, although it may have been committed on board or by means of a foreign ship, and the person who committed such offence may be arrested, tried, and punished accordingly." The phrases and words "the territorial waters of his Majesty's dominions," "the jurisdiction of the Admiral," "offence," "ship," and "foreign ship," are defined by s.7 of the same statute. And ss. 3 & 4 place certain restrictions on the prosecution of a person not a subject of his Majesty, and contain provisions as to procedure. The statute does not expressly exclude or include foreign public vessels. As to their position, see The Parlement Belge, 5 P. D. 197 (C. A.) and Report of Fugitive Slave Commission, 1876, Parl. Pap. 1878, vol. 28. The extent to which municipal jurisdiction outside the three miles limit is internationally recognized was fully discussed in the Behring Sea Arbitration. The Central Criminal Court has jurisdiction to inquire of, hear, and determine any offence committed, or alleged to have been committed, within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, and to deliver the appointed gaols of the Central Criminal Court of prisoners committed to or detained there for such offences; and all indictments found and proceedings had before the Court are valid. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 36, s. 22; 44 & 45 Vict. c. 64, s. 2 (2): R. v. Anderson, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 161: R. v. Carr, 10 Q. B. D. 76; 52 L. J. (M. C.) 12.

By the Admiralty Offences Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 2), all offences alleged to have been committed on the high seas, and other places within the Admiralty of England, may be heard and determined by his Majesty's justices of the assize or others his Majesty's commissioners by whom any court shall be holden under any of his Majesty's commissions of oyer and terminer or general gaol delivery, and they shall have severally and jointly all the powers which by any act are given to the commissioners

named in any commission of oyer and terminer for the trying of offences committed within the Admiralty of England, and may deliver the gaol, in every county and franchise within the limits of their several commissions, of any person committed to or imprisoned therein for any offence alleged to have been committed upon the high seas, etc., and all indictments found, and other proceedings had, by and before the said justices and commissioners shall be valid (s. 1). By sect. 2 of the same Act in all indictments preferred before the said justices and commissioners under that Act, the venue laid in the margin shall be the same as if the offence had been committed in the county where the trial is had; and all material facts, which, in other indictments, would be averred to have taken place in the county where the trial is had, shall, in indictments preferred under that Act, be averred to have taken place "on the high seas." The offence need not, therefore, now be averred to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. R. v. Jones, 1 Den. 101; 2 C. & K. 165. Sect. 3 provides for the commitment for trial of persons charged with such offences; and sect. 4 saves the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, under 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 36, s. 22, ante, p. 41. Where any person shall within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England or Ireland, become accessory to any felony, whether at common law or by statute, and whether committed within that jurisdiction or elsewhere, or begun within it and completed elsewhere, or begun elsewhere and completed within it, his offence shall be felony, and the venue in the margin of the indictment shall be the same as if the offence had been committed in the county or place in which he is indicted, and his offence shall be averred to have been committed "on the high seas." 24 & 25 Vict. c. 94, s. 9. As to the trial of offenders in the British dominions beyond the seas for crimes committed on the high seas, or in places in which the Crown has power or jurisdiction out of his Majesty's dominions, see 12 & 13 Vict. c. 96; and 53 & 54 Vict. c. 37. By the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 687, all offences against property or person committed in or at any place either ashore or afloat out of his Majesty's dominions by any master, seaman, or apprentice, who at the time when the offence is committed is, or within three months previously has been, employed in any British ship, shall be deemed to be offences of the same nature respectively, and be liable to the same punishments respectively, and be inquired of, heard, tried, determined, and adjudged in the same manner, and by the same courts, and in the same places as if such offences had been committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England; and the costs and expenses of the prosecution of any such offences may be directed to be paid as in the case of costs and expenses of prosecutions for offences committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England. R. v. Dudley, 14 Q. B. D. 273; 54 L. J. (M. C.) 32, decided on the similar provision in s. 267 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104 (rep.). See Ilbert, Government of India, 410, and as to colonial jurisdiction under the Act, R. v. Hinde (1902) 22 N. Z. L. R. 436. A hulk retaining the general appointments of a ship, registered as a British ship, and hoisting the British ensign, although only used as a floating warehouse, is a British ship within the meaning of the above enactment. R. v. Armstrong, 13 Cox, 184, Archibald, J. 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 686, sub-s. 1, also enacts, that where any person, being a British subject, charged with having committed any crime or offence on board any British ship on the high seas, or in any foreign port or harbour, or on board any foreign ship to which he does not belong, or not being a British subject is charged with having committed any crime or offence on board any British ship on the high seas, and that person is found (that is to say, is found to be at the time of his trial, R. v. Lopez: R. v. Sattler, Dears.

& B. 525; 27 L. J. (M. C.) 48; 7 Cox, 431) within the jurisdiction of any court of justice in his Majesty's dominions, which would have had cognizance of such crime or offence if committed within the limits of its ordinary jurisdiction, such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and try the case as if such crime or offence had been so committed; sub-s. 2 saves the effect of 12 & 13 l'ict. c. 96. Each of the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts of 1861 contains a provision by which all indictable offences in those acts respectively mentioned committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, are to be deemed to be offences of the same nature and subject to the same punishments as if they had been committed on the land in England or Ireland, and may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, and determined in any county or place in England or Ireland in which the offender shall be apprehended or be in custody, in the same manner in all respects as if the offence had been committed in that county or place. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96 [Larceny, etc.], s. 115; c. 97 [Malicious Injuries to Property], s. 72: c. 98 [Forgery], s. 50; c. 99 [Offences relating to the Coin], s. 36; c. 100 [Offences against the Person, s. 68]. These enactments give jurisdiction to a borough quarter sessions to try a man arrested in the borough for offences committed at sea. R. v. Peel, L. & C. 231; L. J. (M. C.) 69 ; 9 Cox, 220.

Offences during journeys.]-In indictments for felonies or misdemeanors committed upon any person, or on or in respect of any property, in or upon any coach, cart, or other carriage whatsoever employed in any journey, or on board any vessel whatsoever employed in any voyage or journey upon any navigable river, canal, or inland navigation, the venue may be laid in any county through which the coach, etc., or vessel shall have passed in the course of the journey or voyage during which the felony or misdemeanor was committed, in the same manner as if it had been actually committed therein; and where the side, bank, centre or other part of the highway, river, etc., shall constitute the boundary of two counties, the venue may be laid in either of the counties through, or adjoining to, or by, the boundary of any part whereof the coach, etc., or vessel shall have passed in the course of the journey or voyage. 7 G. 4, c. 61, s. 13. This enactment is not confined to the carriages of common carriers, or to public conveyances, but extends to any carriage employed in any journey. R. v. Sharpe, Dears. 415; 24 L. J. (M. C.) 40; 6 Cox, 418. The fact that a person assaulted in a train changes into another carriage of the same train during the journey, does not take away the jurisdiction. R. v. French, 8 Cox, 252. Similar provisions are contained in s. 21 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 69), as to offences on journeys or voyages in which the vehicle or vessel passes through one or more British possessions.

Offences in more than one county or place.]-Where a felony or misdemeanor is committed on the boundary of two or more counties, or within the distance of 500 yards of the boundary, or is begun in one county and completed in another, the venue may be laid in either county, in the same manner as if it had been wholly committed therein. 7 G. 4, c. 61, s. 12 (cf. 41 & 45 Vict. c. 69, s. 20). The distance is measured in a direct line as the crow flies. R. v. Wood, 5 Jur. 225; cf. Lake v. Butler, 5 E. & B. 92, and 52 & 53 Vict. c. 63, s. 34, which governs statutes passed since 1859. The first branch of this enactment extends to the boundaries of counties only, and not to prosecutions in limited jurisdictions. R. v. Welsh, 1 Mood. C. C. 175. 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 12 regulates venue only, and does not enable the prosecutor to lay the offence in one county and try it

in the other; but only to lay and try it in either. R. v. Mitchell, 2 Q. B. 636; 2 G. & D. 274. It seems that in cases of murder or manslaughter, where the cause of death arises in one county, and the death takes place in another, the prisoner may, under this statute, be indicted in either county. 3 Russ. Cr. (6th ed.), 146.

In the case of misdemeanor persons who anywhere incite, procure, and abet, or assist its commission, can be indicted in the county in which the misdemeanor is committed. R. v. Johnson, 7 East, 65; 29 St. Tr. 81; 8 R. R. 597. Where an offence is done through an innocent agent (see ante, p. 12), the principal may be indicted in the county in which the agent acted, or in that in which the principal procured him to act. Fost. 319: R. v. Brisac, 4 East, 164. In indictments for conspiracies or other misdemeanors, the venue may be laid in any county in which it can bo proved that an act was done by any one of the offenders in furtherance of their common design. R. v. Burdett, 4 B. & Ald. 95; 1 St. Tr., N. S. 1, 116. See R. v Brisac, 4 East, 161. So in indictments for compassing the King's death, or for any of the treasons in 36 G. 3, c. 7, s. 1 (made perpetual by 57 G. 3, c. 6, s. 1), the venue may be laid in any county in which a sufficient overt act can be proved. R. v. Lord Preston, 12 St. Tr. 645: R. v. Vane, Kel. (J.) 14, 15; 6 St. Tr. 119. See Deacon's case Fost. 9: 18 St. Tr. 365; and post, tit. “ Treason.” In an indictment for sending a threatening letter, the venue may be laid either in the county where the prosecutor received it; R. v. Girdwood, 2 East, P. C. 1120; 1 Leach, 142: R. v. Esser, 2 East, P. C. 1125; or in the county from which the offender sent it. So, if a libel, R. v. Burdett, 1 St. Tr., N. S. 1, 124; 4 B. & Ald. 95: R. v. Ellis [1899] 1 Q. B. 230: R. v. Watson, 1 Camp. 215: or a letter containing a challenge (R. v. Williams, 2 Camp. 506) be sent from the county of A. to the county of B., the venue may be laid in either county. So, if an act done in one county prove a nuisance to another, in an indictment for it, the venue may be laid in either county, although it has been said to be more correct to lay it in the county in which the act was done. Staundf. b. 2, 91. See post, tit. Larceny. These rules appear not to apply to offences part of the essential elements of which take place outside England. R. v. Ellis [1899] 1 Q. B. 230, C. C. R. Cf. Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. Basle Chemical Works [1898] App. Cas. 200, 204.

Offences in counties of cities or towns.]-Where an offence is committed within the county of a city or town corporate (except in London, Westminster, or the borough of Southwark, 38 G. 3, c. 52, s. 10), the prosecutor may prefer his indictment to the grand jury of the next adjoining county, at the sessions of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery, and may have the offender tried there. 38 G. 3, c. 52, s. 2. See R. v. Gough, 2 Doug. 791: R. v. Mellor, R. & R. 144; R. v. Goff, R. & R. 179; R. v. Pinney, 3 St. Tr., N. S. 11. Or, if the bill have been found by a grand jury of the county of the city, etc., any court of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery, holden for such county of the city, etc., may order it to be tried by a jury of the next adjoining county. 38 G. 3, c. 52, s. 3. In such cases the venue should be stated as prescribed by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 23 (supra, p. 35), and the court before which the offender is tried and convicted may order the judgment to be executed either in the county of trial or in the county of the city or town corporate in which the offence was committed. 51 G. 3, c. 100, s. 1. By the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 55, s. 19), "whenever any justice or justices of the peace, or coroner, acting for any county of a city or county of a town corporate, within which her Majesty has not been pleased for

five years next before the passing of this act (1 Aug., 1851) to direct a commission of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery to be executed, and until her Majesty shall be pleased to direct a commission of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery to be executed within the same, shall commit for safe custody to the gaol or house of correction of such county of a city or town any person charged with any offence committed within the limits of such county of a city or town not triable at the court of quarter sessions of the said county of a city or county of a town, the commitment shall specify that such person is committed pursuant to this Act; and the recognizances to appear to prosecute and give evidence taken by such justice, justices or coroner, shall in all such cases be conditioned for appearance, prosecution, and giving evidence at the court of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery for the next adjoining county . . . and the justice, justices, or coroner, by whom persons charged as aforesaid may be committed, shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the proper officer of the court the several examinations, informations, evidence, recognizances, and inquisitions relative to such persons at the time and in the manner that would be required in case such persons had been committed to the gaol of such adjoining county by a justice or justices, or coroner, having authority so to commit; and the same proceedings shall and may be had thereupon at the sessions of oyer and terminer or general gaol delivery for such adjoining county, as in the case of persons charged with offences of the like nature committed within such county."

S. 23 of the same Act extends to prisoners bred in or removed for trial to the adjoining county (under s. 19) the provisions of 38 G. 3, c. 52, and 51 G. 3, c. 100, as to the execution of the sentences to be passed on such persons, and as to the payment of expenses (see post, Book 1. ch. vi., Costs). By s. 188 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50), (1) "Until her Majesty is pleased to direct a commission of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery to be executed within any borough, being a county of a city or county of a town, all bills of indictment for offences committed within that borough shall be preferred, and all proceedings thereon shall be had in the manner authorized by 38 G. 3, c. 52. (2) For the purposes of that Act, each borough named in the 6th schedule shall be considered as next adjoining the county named in conjunction therewith.” 45 & 46 Vict. c. 50, s. 242, amends 14 & 15 Vict. c. 55, s. 24, by substituting for the purposes of the Act of 1851 the same 6th schedule. Under it, Northumberland is considered the next adjoining county to Berwick-upon-Tweed and Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Gloucestershire, to Bristol; Cheshire, to Chester; Devonshire, to Exeter; and Yorkshire, to Kingston-upon-Hull. Bristol, Chester, and Exeter were excepted from 38 G. 3, c. 52 (see s. 10), but the exception was repealed by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835 (5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76, s. 109). See R. v. Holden, 8 C. & P. 606. As to the mode of stating that the county of trial is next adjoining, see R. v. Goff, R. & R. 179.

Separate commissions of assize, etc., are still issued and executed for the counties of the cities or towns of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Exeter, Bristol, Norwich, Gloucester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Worcester, York, Haverfordwest, and Carmarthen, and for the borough of Leicester.

The counties of cities or towns besides those already named are Canterbury, Southampton, Lichfield, and Poole.

Offences tried in the High Court.]-Where an indictment is tried in the High Court, the venue is the county in which the indictment was found, unless change of venue is ordered (see post, s. 13, Certiorari), or unless the trial is at bar. R. v. Amery, 1 Î. R. 363; 1 R. R. 179: