This is like every other criminal case-the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. If the quantity is supposed to be 2,900 bushels and the attorney general finds that it is only 1,900, the man is charged with theft of or converting to his own use 100 bushels. The burden is upon the crown to show that the man actually had the extra 100 bushels in his possession, and converted them to his own use in some way. I do not see how anybody is going to Ibe hurt. You are not by this clause putting the burden of proof upon the defendant. If the bailiff seized 2,000 bushels of grain and it turns out afterwards that there were only 1,900 bushels, and if the bailiff really believes that the 100 bushels were misappropriated by the person holding them in custody, he can lay a charge and it is incumbent upon the bailiff to prove that the 100 bushels were stolen.
Topic: CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT