<p>Blackall, P. The appellants were charged with a number of other persons with offences which may be described compendiously as encroaching upon a Forest Reserve. Seventeen were acquitted by the Magistrate, four had their convictions quashed on appeal by the Divisional Judge, and twelve had their convictions affirmed. These latter are the present appellants.</p><p>The ground of appeal is that there was a misjoinder of persons and that in the interest of justice the Judge should have ordered separate trials. It has been laid down in many cases and very clearly set out in that of Grondkowski (1) that when an application IS made by a prisoner indicted jointly with another, that he should be tried separately, it must be made at the outset of the trial. “The Judge,” to quote the words of Lord Goddard, L.C.J., in the case mentioned, “must consider the interest of justice as well as the interests of the prisoners. It is too often nowadays thought, or seems to be thought, that the interests of justice means only the interests of the prisoners.” Unless the application for a separate trial is made at the outset the trial Court is not enabled to exercise the judicial discretion vested in it. But no such application was made.</p><p>On this ground alone the appeal fails; but even if an application for separate trials had been refused, this Court would not interfere unless it could be shown that a manifest injustice had been done to the prisoners. In the present case all the accused were represented by the same Counsel, and no application was made for separate trials. The Magistrate evidently went into the charges</p>