300 
INSPECTION. 
persons upon oath, but where fraud is alleged, or any act 
carrying penal consequences, he should always do so. The 
form of oath (to he taken on the Scriptures) may be as 
follows :— 
“ The evidence you shall give touching the matters in 
question shall he the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
hut the truth, so help you God.” 
[An affirmation may he taken instead of an oath in the 
cases allowed by law.] 
Having heard the statements made on behalf of the 
applicants, the inspector will require the trustees of the 
society, in whom all its property is vested (sect. 16, sub 
sect. 3), to produce its hooks and documents, or such of 
them as he may deem necessary, calling upon them at the 
same time for any evidence in disproof of the applicant’s 
allegations. 
If there is any likelihood that the production of books 
or documents will be unwilling or incomplete, it will be 
well for the inspector to make his requisition in writing, 
as by sect. 39 every document purporting to he signed by 
an inspector is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
to he received in evidence without proof of the signature. 
The same applies to the summoning of witnesses. 
If the society refuses to produce its books, he should 
warn it that it commits an offence under sect. 14 (3 a) of 
the Act, as failing “ to do or allow to be done any act or 
thing which the society is by this Act required to give, 
send, do, or allow to be done.” 
If the society wilfully neglect or refuse to furnish any 
information which the inspector requires for the purposes 
of his inspection, he should warn it that it commits an 
offence under sect. 14 (3 b) of the Act, as wilfully neglect 
ing or refusing “ to furnish any information required for 
the purposes of this Act by the chief or any other registrar 
or other person authorized by this Act.” 
If the society wilfully furnishes to him information in 
any respect false or insufficient, he should warn it that it 
commits an offence under sect. 14 (3 c) of the Act. 
[By the term “ society ” must always be understood the 
trustees.] 
Under the “ Act to Amend the Law of Evidence, 14 & 15 
Viet. c. 99, s. 2,” it would appear that the “parties” to the 
inquiry are “compellable” to give evidence ; hut the in 
spector does not appear to have any power of compelling 
the attendance of mere witnesses, and he certainly has not 
any power of committing for contempt of his authority. 
The general principle that no person is compellable to