perhaps be some difficulty in applying the evidence to establish
the offence. It is, however, unnecessary to say anything further
on that point, because the fact of the appellant being a prohibited
immigrant was clearly established by his failure to pass the
dictation test, he being a person who, in my opinion, had evaded
an officer. Therefore, the conviction so far as that goes is right.
Another objection was taken in the nature of a plea of
autrefois acquit, or, as it is better stated, on the ground that a
man may not be twice vexed for the same cause. That arises
from this state of facts. When the appellant first entered the -
Commonwealth, on 28th October 1904, an information was
sworn charging that he was, in the opinion of an officer of
Customs, a prohibited immigrant, and was not present when the
crew was mustered, and a summons was issued thereon. The
appellant, having been found more than a year afterwards, in
October 1905, was on 8th November brought before the
Police Court on that information, and was convicted of the
offence therein charged. He appealed to the Court of General -
Ssssions on the ground, amongst others, that the conviction,
which followed the information, disclosed no offence. The Chair- -
man of that Court was of opinion that that contention was right -
and quashed the conviction. It is said that, under these cireum-
stances, the matter of the charge against the appellant in the
information of 28th November 1904, on which he was convicted
on 8th November 1905, was substantially the same as that of the
charge against him in the information of 25th January 1906, on
which he was convicted on 31st January 1906. The Chairman
of General Sessions held, as I have said, that the information in
the first case disclosed no offence. Application was made to him
to amend the information - it may be, perhaps, that it was the
conviction which should have been amended - but he refused to
do so. I myself cannot entertain a doubt that he had power to
amend. But, he having refused to amend, what effect must be
given to the conviction which really disclosed no offence, but