86 REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND FISHERIES. 



We find nothing in the sections mentioned which can be supposed to be violated 

 by the provisions of the statute. The argument in support of this motion was 

 addressed to the clause of the law which provides: " The possession of any such 

 lobster, cooked or uncooked, not of the prescribed length shall be prima facie 

 evidence to convict." As the offence charged in this case was having m. posses- 

 sion, it could be no infringement of the defendant's constitutional rights to enact 

 that proof of the fact should be prima fade proof of the offence. If the clause 

 has any effect in a case like this one, it is only to emphasize the right of the 

 defendant to introduce evidence to show that his possession was not with guilty 

 knowledge, as he was admitted to do at the trial before the jury. 



We can not see that any constitutional question properly arises in this case. 



The first exception is that a witness was allowed to testify to facts which are 

 matters of public record without producing such record. 



The transcript shows that this objection was expressly waived by the defendant 

 rather than submit to an adjournment, that the record might be produced. 



The second exception is taken to the refusal of the presiding justice to dismiss 

 the complaint on the ground that the complainant had not given surety for costs 

 and was not an officer authorized by law to bring such complaint without giving 

 surety. 



The motion to dismiss grounded on the objection to the complainant's official 

 status came too late. It should have been made before the defendant had 

 pleaded in bar to the complaint. State v. McCarty, 4 R. I. 82. 



The third exception is to the refusal of the court to the offer of the defendant 

 to prove that lobsters which he had had in his possession on previous occasions 

 were of lawful size. This evidence was obviously incompetent. 



The fourth exception is to the refusal of the court to charge the jury that: 

 " The possession of short lobsters is only prima facie evidence of guilt. The 

 defendant can explain the possession and if he did not know he had short lobsters 

 in his possession, he is not guilty." The court had already allowed the defendant 

 to introduce evidence explaining his possession of the lobsters in question and 

 had charged the jury to the effect that if the defendant, knowing that he had 

 lobsters in his possession, and having full opportunity to examine them, neglected 

 to inform himself that they were under legal size, he might be found guilty of the 

 offence charged. 



We think this instruction correctly stated the law as applicable to the case, and 

 the request was properly refused. 



The last exception was taken to the charge as a whole, and, as we have re- 

 peatedly held, can not be considered. 



The exceptions are overruled, and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court 

 for sentence. 



