CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. Co 
This limited power of criminal jurisdiction does not Rules of 
: . s 2 evidence. 
extend to the alteration of the rules of evidence existing for 
the protection of persons accused of offences; a man there- 
fore cannot be compelled to criminate himself, even though 
the offence be one created by a provincial Legislature’, 
In so far as a province has power to enact penal laws, it Procedure 
has an implied power to regulate the procedure requisite for 
enforcing such laws® 
The point has been raised in Quebec, whether a provincial Punich- 
. . . . ment. 
Legislature has power to punish by both fine and imprison- 
ment or by one only of these modes. In one case’ the latter 
view was taken, but in a subsequent case it was held that 
the word or in s. 92 (15) is not used in a disjunctive sense®. 
A province it has been held may enforce its penal laws 
by hard labour in addition to imprisonment®. 
Though this power of making criminal laws is vested in 
the Dominion, the Attorney-General of the province is the 
proper officer to prosecute in the courts of justice in the 
province’. 
Election Petitions. By section 41 of the Act it was pro- Election 
vided that until the Parliament of the Dominion should Petitions. 
otherwise determine, the old mode of hearing Election 
Petitions was to continue, and it was held® that this gave 
jurisdiction to the Dominion Parliament. 
By an Act passed in 1874° the existing provincial courts 
were constituted courts for the trial of Election Petitions, 
1 Regina v. Roddy, 41 U. C. Q. B. 291; 1 Cart. 709. 
3 Pope v. Griffith, 16 L. C. Jurist 169; 2 Cart. 291. Ex parte Duncan 
16 In. C. Jurist 188: 2 Cart. 297. Page v. Griffith, 17 L. C. Jurist 302: 
2 Cart, 308. 
3 Ex parte Papin, 15 L. C. Jurist 334; 16 L. C. Jurist 319; § Cart. pp. 
320-323. + Paige v. Griffith, 18 Ln. C. Jurist 119; 2 Cart. 324. 
5 See the English Cases of Fowler v. Padget, 7 T. R. 514 and Ditcher v. 
Denison, 11 Moore’s P. C. 838 where “or” in an Act of Parliament was held 
to mean “and.” 8 Regina v. Frawley, O. 7 App. Rep. 246. 
* 4, G.v. Niagara Falls Inter. Bridge Co., 20 Grant 34; 1 Cart. 813. 
8 Valin v. Langlois, 5 App. Cas. 115; 1 Cart. p. 158. 
9% 37 Vie. ¢. 10.