of prohibition to be directed toKS. Jarvis Esq Nike Free one of her Majestys justices of the peace in and for the county of Middlesex and to one John Chapman of the village of London West the complainant in two informations laid Polo Outlet Online by him before the said justice of the peace charging the said the water commissioners for the city of London and the said the corporation of the city of London jointly with having unlawfully and injuriously constructed across the river Thames at a point about four miles from the said city of London a certain dam and the said dam unlawfully obstinately and injuriously to have maintained in such an unlawful and injurious manner as to create and continue Nike Free Run various public nuisances &c &c.There were two cases argued together and one judgment delivered in both. RBP.VOL. XIX. O.R.Statement. And also charging the said the corporation of the city of London with having also unlawfully and injuriously constructed across the said river a certain dam and the same unlawfully obstinately and injuriously to have maintained &c so as to create and continue a great public nuisance North Face Outlet Store &c. And the grounds taken were:a That the water commissioners for the city of London and the corporation of the city of London being as they are in fact both corporate bodies they are not subject to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act respecting proceedings against persons charged before a justice of the peace with an indictable offence nor is there any power to summon the said corporations before him nor to compel their attendance and that in the absence of the said corporations the said justice had no jurisdiction to proceed ex parte.bThat there is no power for the justice to bind by recognizance the person presenting the information to prosecute or give evidence against the The North Face Outlet accused unless a witness or witnesses were examined.c That by the provisions of section of the Criminal Procedure Act no bill of indictment for a nuisance which is that which is charged against the said defendants can be presented to or found by a grand jury unless the defendants be committed for trial or the prosecutor or other person presenting the indictment be bound by recognizance to prosecute or give evidence against the accused or unless the indictment for such offence is preferred by the direction of the Attorney-General for the Province.The motion was Ralph Lauren Outlet Online argued on March before ROBERTSONJ.J. B. ClarkeC for the motion. The magistrate has no jurisdiction to summon a Polo Ralph Lauren Outlet corporation. He cannot commit them The North Face Outlet Store for trial nor bind Nike Max Air 90 them over to appear. Corporations are not subject to the provisions of The Criminal Procedure Act.Hutchinsoncontra. The magistrate Nike Shop has jurisdiction Argument against all persons. Nike Max Air Person includes corporations : R. S. C. ch sec sub-sec The prosecutor must be bound over under R. S. C. ch sec and Nike Argentina the magistrate did not intend to proceed further than to do that.Clarkein reply. The justice could not bind over the prosecutor unless he could commit or admit to bail. I refer to The Queenv. Berford El. & ElRe Appledore North Face Outlet E. at Ref. dEx parte Higgins JurThe Duke of Devonshirev. Foott Ir. R. EqRe Meyersv. Wonnacott U. C. R ; Reginav. Tim Local Government Board B. D at pShortt on Informations Mandamus and Prohibition March ROBERTSONJ.:After stating the facts as above.The th section of the Criminal Procedure Act R S. C. ch enacts that no bill of indictment for nuisanceamong other offences therein named shall be presented to or found by any grand jury unless the prosecutor or other person presenting such indictment has been bound by recognizance to prosecute or give evidence against the person accused of such offence or unless the person accused has been committed to or detained in Ralph Lauren Outlet custody or has been bound by recognizance to appear to answer to an