CO129-508-11 Copies of Ordinances and amendments with relating correspondence 17-12-1927 - 17-7-1928 — Page 89

92

custody of the police or charged upon the charge sheet.

There was no provision ehich expressly empowered the magistrate

in such an event to proceed to hear and determine the case.

Section 3 of this Ordinance remedies the omission.

5. Section 11 (1) of the principal Ordinance provided

that if a defendant did not appear in answer to a summons the magistrate might issue a warrant for his arrest (1) upon being satisfied by cath that the summons was duly served, and (2)

on cath being made before the magistrate substantiating the

matter of the complaint ca information. It has long been

the practice to issue this warrant upon sworn evidence of the

service of the summons, without requiring the complaint to be

substantiated by cath. The reason for this practice is

probably to be found in the form of warrant which is given in

the First Schedule and which is referred to in the margin of

the section, 1.e., Form No. 2. That form recites sworn evi-

-dence of the service of summons but does not recite that the

matter of the complaint was substantiated by cath.

Section

4 of this Ordinance amends the section in question so as to

make it agree with the practice. Section 6 of the principal

Ordinance provides that "The forms in the First Schedule

shall be deemed good, valid and sufficient in law." It is

a curicus thing that exactly the same discrepancy between the

section and the form occurs in the case of section 2 of the

Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 and Form (B) in the Schedule

to that Act. Section 13 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act,

1848, and section 14 of the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, re-

-quire only sworn evidence of the summons. Section 9 of

the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, does not even require

sworn evidence of the service of the summons, but Form (D)

in the Schedule tc that Act recites that service has been

proved by cath.

1

6.