This argument is largely based on the statement made by the learned Judge that these topics were "all for your decision". But the force of this argument depends on taking these words apart from their context. If the passage in which they appear is regarded as a whole and as addressed to the Jury with regard to one of the issues clearly raised by counsel in the course of their speeches viz., that) of the need to prove a fraudulent) intention on the part of the accused, it appears to me that the criticism of counsel for the defendant has but}
Tittle force.
The grounds of appeal numbered (2) to (G) may be dealt Sether, the Tib ground having been given up by counsel for the defer I will preface my remarks these grounds of appeal by a passage from the judgment of Lord Esher (then Justice Brett M. R.) in Abrath v. the North Eagtern Railway Ca; 11 Q. B.D. at psd, He says "It is no misdirection not tai the fry everything which mht have been told them; there is no misdirection unless the learned Judge has told them something wrong, or unless what he has told them would make wrong that which he has left them to understand. Nondirection merely is not mi and those who allege mi must show that something wrong was said or that something was said which would make wrong that which was left to be understood". This! exposition of the Inw has been quoted with strong approval in more than one case decided in the Court of Criminal Appeal in England (soe) Hex v, Stoddart 2 Or. Ap: Rep. at) Trust be taken an an authoritative age 246, in this connection) anc
statement on the subject.of misdirection.
Summing Up ax a Whole It is not enough that some cxpressions used by the Trial Judge) may be open to criticism; you must look at the summing up as a whole, and if there has been no substan-misdirection and the Court is satisfied with the result of the trial, will not interfere." It is most:
portant that the Court should in possession of the whole of the facts"and appreciate the way in which both the prosecution and the defence was conducted" (see Rex Dodds, 1 Or. Ap. Rep. at p. 68).
'As was pointed out by the Court in delivering its judgment in R. V. Stoddart, subra, at page 245, ably no' summing up, and certainly not one that attempts to deal with. the incidents—as to which the evidcence has extended over a period of twenty days would fail to be open to some objection. every, summing up must be regarded in the light of the conduct of the trial and the questions which have been raised by the Counsel for the prosecution and for the defence respectively." Counsel for the defence placed strong reliance on Rex vy, Summerskill 13 Or. ap. Rep. baze 170 which was a case of false pretences. The Trial Judge had directed the jury in that ease in the follow. ing terms:—"If you are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that, when sending in the bill he (ie. the accused) was sending in a bill that was a bogus bill, that he was filing in detail, circumstances which he had every reason to suppose were wrong, or that he was absolutely. careless whether they were right or wrong, with a view to obtaining money which, by putting only to professional services rendered he would not obtain, then you will find him guilty"
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.