What is the test for a charge of having in possession of a false scale beam contrary to the Weights and Measures Act?

I have had occasion to consider this point before. In Crowther v. Bawlf Grain Co. (1924) (unreported) the accused was charged with having in its possession a false scale beam contrary to the Weights and Measures Act, now R.S.C., 1927, ch. 212. The offence as defined in the relevant provisions of such Act was not having in possession but having in possession for use. Objection having been taken that the charge as laid disclosed no offence, I sustained such objection. Application was then made to me to amend and this I refused on the ground that while the magistrate might have done so and had the information resworn a Judge on appeal was required to try the matter on the information as laid and, while he could amend as to matters not of substance, he could not amend to substitute an effective charge where no such charge had theretofore been laid. At that time I reviewed a number of authorities none of which was directly in point but from the principle enunciated I was able to arrive at the conclusion mentioned. I am happy to say that since that time the same question has come before many Judges with the same jurisdiction and they have invariably reached the same conclusion. In addition to the case referred to in my previous judgment I would refer to the following: