30 THE FREDERICK GERRING, JR. 



before all the Judges. "They held that the conviction was right 

 "as to all the prisoners; the judges were of opinion that as each 

 "of the prisoners acted in completing some part of the forgery, 

 "and in pursuance of the common plan, each was a principal in 

 "the forgery; and that, although the prisoner Batkin was not 

 "present when the note was completed Vjy the signature, he was 

 "equally guilty with the others." 



This principle has been applied by the English courts to the 

 very act of fishing now under consideration. In Ruther vs. Harris, 

 1 Ex. D. 97, it was held that when a person had set a net for the 

 purpose of catching salmon on Sunday, such net was properly 

 forfeited under a statute which provided that: "No person shall 

 "fish for, catch or kill by any means other than a rod and line 

 "any salmon between 12 o'clock at noon on Saturday and 6 o'clock 

 "on Monday morning; and any person acting in contravention of 

 "this section shall forfeit all fish taken by him and any net or 

 "movable instrument used by him in taking the same." 



In Short vs. Bastard, 46 J. P. 580, it was held under a statute 

 prohibiting fishing for salmon, except with a net having meshes 

 of a certain size, that as the net used was calculated t o catch 

 salmon it was immaterial whether salmon were caught or intended 

 to be caught or not. 



In the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in relation to 

 the Treaty of 1818, given August 30th, 1841, the opinion was ex- 

 pressed that casting bait to lure fish in the track of any American 

 vessel navigating the Gut of Canso would constitute a fishing 

 within the negative terms of the Treaty. 



These authorities will serve to show how remote from the com- 

 pletion of a continuous act, an act forming part of it may be in 

 order to come within the terms of a prohibition against the com- 

 mission of the continuous act. 



It seems, however, to Counsel for the respondent that it is un- 

 necessary to resort to such authorities when the act proved is the 

 end and completion of the continuous act, because, as is stated by 

 Mr. Justice Richardson in Rex vs. Bingley, if a different construction 

 of the prohibition of a continuous act were adopted, it would apply 

 only to the last operation, which in the present case the act proved 

 was. 



And it is submitted, on behalf of the respondent, that no clearer 

 act of fishing can be imagined than the act of hauling fish on board 

 a vessel from a line or bailing them on board from a net. 



